Why am I against legal short barrels

430
Why am I against legal short barrels

The topic of legalizing the short barrel again surfaced on the network. And to the traditional arguments of the supporters of this movement, the rather painful topic of the mobile reserve has been added today. A person who legally owns a pistol is better prepared for combat than one who does not have this pistol! I wonder why?

The one who served in a normal army is better prepared, who is taught to work with those types of weapons that are assigned to him in military specialty. The one who, after the service, periodically underwent retraining in the military unit where, in the event of a mobilization announcement, he will have to serve.



Personally, I know cases when soldiers and sergeants, after the announcement of mobilization, themselves wrote to the commanders of the military units in which they served, so that they would be called up in their unit. But these are the ones who have recently retired. Those who are still remembered by the commanders.

We are already traditionally frightened by rampant crime, where weapon exists without legalization. An interesting argument is made. The perpetrator will know that the victim may have a gun in his pocket and will not attack. Have you seen enough films about all sorts of supermen? You have a gun in a holster, and the criminal has it in his hand. And he has nothing to lose.

I understand the reasons why this question is raised. And why it was raised by those who are most active on the network today, who are read and who are deservedly respected as a source of truthful information about the war. I even understand one of the main arguments of legalization supporters.

“In the republics, possession of weapons up to 12,7 mm is allowed and nothing. Crime hasn't gone up."

In the conditions of life in the front line, in fact, on the line of contact, this would be the right decision indeed. The armament of the people, actually ready-made people's militia in case of a sudden attack by the enemy. What about crime? On the other hand, they are not fools either, the criminals are well aware that no one will especially re-educate them. And to persuade to surrender too.

To be honest, as a person who for some time was very close to a pistol, who actually shared a pillow with him, I do not understand such a desire to have a weapon at home. Any person who has had to deal with a weapon due to official necessity knows perfectly well that a gun creates more problems than it really protects.

Any shot will cost you so many nerves that the second time you think to shoot or not to shoot. Even if you act strictly according to the law. How many people suffered for the notorious "excess"?.. The law is good, but any law is interpreted by a person. Alas, it is.

Why am I against "arming the people"?


I'll start with a simple, but for some reason little-covered question - why is a personal weapon needed at all? The question is banal. For protection! .. It's clear. Each of us is attacked in some way every day. Someone's phone was taken away, someone was sweared at in line at the supermarket checkout, someone looked at someone the wrong way, someone was cut off by a reckless driver on the road ...

And then my wife passed out in the morning. The dunce son again dragged the deuces from school. The chief-satrap warmed up for the unfulfilled work. The battery in the car was discharged when it was necessary to urgently go. The traffic cop is waving his stick. Yes, and a concussion, once received in a hot spot, affects. I am a normal person and I react quite adequately to all attacks, but in this case ...

And this is where the biggest danger lies. A man without a weapon and a man with a weapon are completely different people. How many neighbors in your high-rise building do you know? Units! Can you easily resolve conflict with words? Ordinary human language?

Silly questions? But these are very serious questions. He took out a gun, and your opponent immediately agreed with your arguments. Or shot back. The responsibility of a "man with a gun" in a normal civilian life is an order of magnitude higher than that of a person without this same gun.

I remembered a recent video of a soldier's attempt to capture the enemy. Quite justified during the war episode. Or you, or you. He offered to surrender, they tried to deceive and turn their guns on you. The answer is destruction. Correctly during the war, but during the world? In a peaceful environment.

Once upon a time, back in the days of the USSR, we had a new "weapon" - martial arts. The generation of "survival time" remembers this very well, the rest of the militants of the late XX century to help. Then there was no coach who would not start training with the fact that karate is, first of all, a way of protection. But in life, everything turned out to be the opposite. The short barrel is exactly the same weapon.

Alas, our society is not ready to legalize weapons. What is legally in the hands of the population today is quite enough for protection and other things. We talk a lot about education, about ideology, about some kind of training of the mob staff. And we all agree that we have seams with this in our country. And full. And in the case of the legalization of the short barrel, all of a sudden, everything will be all right with us! ..

One more thing. From films about American cops. Think about the actions of our police officers in the event that the wearing of short barrels is allowed. No matter how cynical it sounds, but I fully admit the execution of detainees simply because of the possibility of using pistols against employees.

Not so climbed for documents and received a bullet from an employee. And it's legal. The employee in this case is a representative of the government. And he is not obliged to deal with the fact that the criminal is going to shoot at him or a law-abiding citizen took out a gun to give to an employee. He has one life, family, children and everything else is present in the same way as other men and women.

This is probably why I believe that the legalization of short barrels is not a solution to the problem, but, on the contrary, an aggravation of this problem. Precisely due to the fact that our society has not yet matured for this. How many corpses do we have "on account" of premium weapons? How many hunters die every year at the opening of the hunt? Units, you say? Yes, the numbers are shocking. But these are trained and repeatedly verified owners of officially registered weapons!

Preparation of a mobile reserve or another nonsense of those who want to have a gun


A beautiful picture of how trained, understand - having rifled weapons for personal use, men in a short time pour in from units and subunits and already trained go to the front line, caresses the heart of a simple layman. No need to bother too much with the retraining of the mobilized.

So what if the "new old" learned to work with AKM or AK-74. He will also be given an AK machine gun, only the number will be different - 12 or 15. He is a machine gun. FROM a tank is the same story. T-62 or T-90? Well, the tank, which means the “new old” with a personal PM, will be able to fight on it as well. Well, those who had carbines as personal weapons, generally ready-made snipers: what to shoot at a boar, what at the enemy, what's the difference?

Of course, I'm exaggerating, but the talk about the fact that shooting from a pistol once a year in a shooting range and readiness for mobilization is being taken quite seriously. They are trying to convince me that everyone who likes how “the gun warms the thigh” is better fighters than those who do without weapons in civilian life. They even try to convince me that a man without a weapon is like a defective man. Here is a quote from the Telegram channel:

“A weapon is, first of all, masculine strength and masculine confidence. It is not necessary to use weapons, and most importantly, the very fact of their availability in order to protect their rights. That's what gives confidence."

I wonder if the person with whom you have a conflict also thinks so? If so, and I'm sure of it just because his gun is also legal, then what happens next - after the demonstration of short barrels? Will we continue to "defend" or hide the trunks and disperse in peace?

I found the answer, by the way, from the same author in the Telegram. Think about the author's logic:

“By the way, showdowns on the roads with the use of one of the sides of the injury are not about the perniciousness of owning weapons, but about the fact that there are few of them, and the chance, having taken out a weapon, not to meet a weapon on the other side is very high. If there were more weapons on hand, there would be fewer such cases.”

But back to mobreserve.

Do not mix sweet and cold. Do we want to live in the same conditions as the front-line Donbass? So let's introduce the same system as in Switzerland, for example. From the age of 18 the opportunity to buy a gun. He served in the army as a machine gunner - the opportunity to have a machine gun at home, as a grenade launcher - a grenade launcher, etc.

Beautifully so, one of the most armed countries in the world - eternally neutral Switzerland! 2,5 million trunks per 8 million population. All men who are fit for military service for health reasons are required to own weapons and be able to use them. This is part of the patriotic education of the nation. Do we just need it?

There are other data as well. It is Switzerland that has one of the highest rates of crimes involving firearms! It is in Switzerland that one of the world's highest rates of suicides with the use of firearms. It is Switzerland that, in terms of the level of depression of the population, ranks second (after Norway) in Europe.

There was and remains only one way to increase the quality of mobile reserves. Qualitative, from the point of view of education and training, military service and periodic, high-quality retraining at least up to 40 years. Once every three or four years for a couple of months in a unit and master new equipment and weapons or restore skills in working with known equipment.

Is it even possible to allow the sale of a short barrel?


Now I will write something unexpected for those who have already understood my position. Yes, the sale of handguns can be allowed after a fairly short time. To do this, it is necessary to change the legal framework. First of all, you need to clearly define the key concepts. Such as self-defense, for example.

Further, it is necessary to clearly separate hunting, sporting and military weapons. Is the rifled carbine of a hunter-fisherman a hunting weapon or a combat one? And the biathlete's rifle? Many questions, for example, are raised by pumps. Is it a combat or hunting weapon?

I stopped hunting for a couple of years. There comes a time when you have to say goodbye to your favorite hobby. Now I’m leaving as soon as possible to shoot at plastic bottles, breathe in the smell of gunpowder, feel the atmosphere of the hunt. And this is where the seditious thought comes to mind about why there are so few boys next to seasoned hunters.

I first shot with a single barrel at the age of 12. And I started hunting on my own at the age of 14. Under the supervision of my father, but I felt like a shooter. I am sure that it was hunting that brought up in me respect and love for weapons. I was not afraid of weapons. Why not allow boys from 14-15 years old to use hunting shotguns under the supervision of adults today?

Further. It is necessary to revive shooting galleries in schools and colleges. In grades 9-10, I shot small things almost once every two weeks. The NVP lessons were paired, so we shot a lot. For most, this was enough.

So, access to sporting and hunting weapons needs to be softened. This will give the population the necessary skills in shooting training, but with a short barrel, serious restrictions must be introduced. In order for a person to be able to obtain the right to purchase and store (note - store, but not concealed carry), it is necessary to undergo a medical, including psychological, examination.

In addition, it is necessary to organize special courses on the study of weapons and the procedure for their use with the issuance of a license for storage. Moreover, the passage of such courses should be annual with the renewal of the license. Including knowledge of laws and other documents related to the storage of weapons.

Well, for concealed carry. Everything is quite simple here. A concealed carry license can be obtained by completing special courses. By type of bodyguard or private security courses. At the same time, the punishment for the illegal use of weapons should be as tough as possible.

We summarize


I understand that the issue of legalizing short barrels will periodically arise in the future. There have always been and will be people who, by hook or by crook, will want to have something for their personal use that, in their opinion, will distinguish them from the general mass of people, which will make them exclusive, privileged.

Having a weapon, being able to use it to achieve your goals, controlling other people in the end is one of the easiest ways to achieve such superiority. Weapons as a way to be slightly above the rest. But at the same time, they will constantly talk about the fact that it is the weapons in their hands that make the world safe.

It is useless for these people to say that any weapon is intended for forceful influence on another person, up to and including murder. There are no weapons for self-defense. It all depends on who is using it and for what. Even the weapons that are created for sports competitions and hunting kill! The most terrible weapon of all time, as many people know, is an ordinary kitchen knife.

There will come a time when we can safely buy pistols or rifles in the store, but for this we must change. To do this, laws must change. To do this, society itself must change.

In the meantime, provided that at least part of what I suggested above is fulfilled, it is possible to allow the purchase and storage of a short barrel. No more. Allow with the understanding that such a decision will cost the lives of a certain number of people ...
430 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  3. +27
    20 January 2023 04: 22
    Can the state at the moment provide one hundred percent protection of citizens from the attack of criminal and crazy elements? ... The answer is rhetorical ... no.
    Any of us can be attacked by drunks, sick in the head, offended by a neighbor, wife, police, mayor's office, janitor, etc. and just the whole world ... how can a simple person defend himself before the police arrive so that he is not killed for it time?
    How else not to go to jail trying to protect yourself from violence?
    The author made an emphasis on extraneous things.
    Before talking about a ban on weapons, any such writers need to explain to people how not to lose their lives and health on the street from ordinary gopniks.
    In Izhevsk in September last year
    offended by the whole world, a minor with two altered injuries killed 17 people in a few minutes ... six adults, two security guards and other schoolchildren ... everyone was unarmed and defenseless ... for some reason this story was quickly closed with complete silence ... our favorite the state is absolutely powerless in protecting citizens against such attacks
    Somehow I do not want to be a defenseless target for such killers. request
    1. +5
      20 January 2023 05: 10
      Can the state at the moment provide one hundred percent protection of citizens from the attack of criminal and crazy elements? ... The answer is rhetorical ... no.
      [/ Quote]
      No state can and will not be able to do this.
      Before talking about a ban on weapons, any such writers need to explain to people how not to lose their lives and health on the street from ordinary gopniks. [quote]

      Can you explain to people how not to lose life and health on the street from armed "ordinary gopniks"? In any case, the attacker, assuming that you may have a weapon, did not give you the opportunity to use it.
      1. +15
        20 January 2023 05: 35
        Quote: Alexander Ivanovich
        can you explain to people how not to lose life and health on the street from armed "ordinary gopniks"?

        I was hoping you could. smile
        Quote: Alexander Ivanovich
        In any case, the attacker, assuming that you may have a weapon, did not give you the opportunity to use it.

        Why, then, do the criminals not attack armed policemen, military men, armed guards of various objects and persons? what
        Although I sometimes see that some policemen carry pistols in the most careless way in crowded places, criminals can very easily seize it.
        1. +2
          20 January 2023 06: 24
          Well, how can they not attack, there are such cases. It's all about the purpose of the attack. Agree, no one with a weapon will attack an armed policeman or, say, a collector, in order to take away his phone or bag.
          1. +12
            20 January 2023 11: 06
            They attack armed law enforcement officers and how, but not openly as Lech thinks from Android, but using the surprise factor. You need to hide and choosing the moment to attack, the gun will not help. Some believe in a gun as an icon that it saves by a miracle laughing

            The video filmed the suspects robbing an armored personnel carrier with AK-47 assault rifles and pistols

            1. +6
              20 January 2023 11: 44
              This in no way speaks of the use of officially acquired weapons .. Compare Canada and the USA, in the USA everyone has the right to purchase with little or no verification, in Canada the procedure for obtaining is more complicated, more similar to the European one, the result is that the criminality with the use of weapons is dozens of times lower
        2. +8
          20 January 2023 07: 01
          Quote: Lech from Android.
          Why, then, do the criminals not attack armed policemen, military men, armed guards of various objects and persons?

          They attack fairly regularly.
          I somehow came across statistics about attacks on SA guards in the 1960s and 1970s.
          The peak was 1974 - about 60 belay cases. This is in a quiet peaceful USSR - where 80% of the men served in the army and knew the UGiKS ....
          Quote: Lech from Android.
          Although I sometimes see that some policemen carry pistols in the most careless way in crowded places, criminals can very easily seize it.
          a person cannot be on guard around the clock. That is why on guard duty there is a rather short time on guard. And the cops undergo professional deformation - "Everyone knows that I am armed ....".
          1. +14
            20 January 2023 08: 20
            1. Nobody will allow anything. Because it's not supposed to be.
            2. First, people must be taught to respect themselves, not to allow the elite to wipe their feet on themselves. But then, after realizing oneself as a man, and not "I am a small subhuman and nothing depends on me," it will be possible to want something or demand from the state.
            1. +24
              20 January 2023 09: 03
              The second point has a nuance: self-respect is impossible without the possibility of self-defense, which is the source of the speech (increasing the ability to protect yourself and your loved ones).
              At the moment, there are only three options for citizens who have self-respect (exaggerated):
              1. An oligarchy that can afford both protection and ignoring laws.
              2. "Athletes", who will be able to resist, say, a group of gopota armed with a cold man, and luck and reason will allow them to remain unfound by government agencies after that (numerous precedents for the criminal punishment of self-defense)
              3. Civil servants with appropriate rights.

              Accordingly, at the moment, if you want self-defense and self-respect: either join one of the indicated categories, or resign yourself to the role of a victim.
              1. +23
                20 January 2023 10: 25
                Interestingly, after the collapse of the USSR, a third of the republics (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Moldova) of the former great country legalized weapons - and it is not audible that they would have any problems because of this.
                From the article we conclude: the same Georgians, a more sensible people than the Russians, to whom just give weapons, they will immediately begin to shoot wherever they miss.
                1. -4
                  20 January 2023 12: 59
                  Bad examples.
                  Compare these countries with Belarus, which has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
                  It is impossible to compare small countries with a small predominantly rural population with large urbanized countries, where the population of one of the megacities is larger than the population of all these countries combined.
                  In my village there is no crime at all, but in the city it is. What's with the weapon?
                  1. +7
                    20 January 2023 15: 32
                    Quote: El Barto
                    It is impossible to compare small countries with a small predominantly rural population with.....

                    Please, here are the data for a large country (fragments, the article is old but it gives a general idea):
                    1. +6
                      20 January 2023 17: 03
                      The assumption that the opponent is armed is conducive to mutual courtesy.
                      ©
                      1. -1
                        20 January 2023 17: 49
                        A very old article. It would be possible to justify your position and find something newer.

                        And so, yes - crime in cities, and in rural areas it is much less (states where simplified gun laws are precisely rural America).
                        In addition, it is important to understand the causal relationship. Gun laws are tightened where there is a bad criminal environment. It is the bad criminal environment that is the reason for the tightening of gun laws. And not vice versa.
                        Where there are no special problems with crime - own your health
                      2. +6
                        20 January 2023 19: 04
                        Quote: El Barto
                        A very old article. It would be possible to justify your position and find something newer.
                        What for ? The article could be 100 years old - people essentially have not changed.
                        Or do you have evidence to the contrary?
                  2. 0
                    30 January 2023 00: 54
                    FAIL EXAMPLE. About which you: - "No ear, no snout" (Folk proverb).
                2. -6
                  20 January 2023 17: 05
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  From the article we conclude: the same Georgians, a more sensible people than the Russians, to whom just give weapons, they will immediately begin to shoot wherever they miss.

                  Georgia: - Well, they could not fight against the circulation of shadow weapons and decided to lead the process
                  Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia: they are afraid of evil Russians to the point of hiccups

                  Moldova: the same situation as in Georgia
                  1. +11
                    20 January 2023 17: 18
                    hiccups are afraid of evil Russians
                    Moreover, they are so afraid that these same Russians (legally residing and having clean documents) are being sold weapons on a general basis.
                    1. 0
                      23 January 2023 07: 35
                      Quote: Bolt Cutter
                      hiccups are afraid of evil Russians
                      Moreover, they are so afraid that these same Russians (legally residing and having clean documents) are being sold weapons on a general basis.
                      Weapons are not sold to non-citizens. In Lithuania, all Russians received citizenship and they were sold weapons, but this was the case in the early 2000s, my friend from Lithuania, a long-range fighter Vasily, at least said so. I don’t know how it is now, but I know that the blogger Kiril Fedorov complained that he couldn’t take a firearm, although now he is in prison in Riga for blogging
                      Kirill Fedorov Russian-speaking video blogger from Riga (Latvia). Author of YouTube channels "Alconafter", "History of Weapons".
                3. 0
                  20 January 2023 23: 10
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  Interestingly, after the collapse of the USSR, a third of the republics (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Moldova) of the former great country legalized weapons - and it is not audible that they would have any problems because of this.
                  From the article we conclude: the same Georgians, a more sensible people than the Russians, to whom just give weapons, they will immediately begin to shoot wherever they miss.

                  It is interesting only to those who do not have complete information about the issue.
                  Because the same Georgians have a ban on carrying a gun with them))))
                  With the exception of officers, former security officials and soldiers.
                  Those. you can keep the same gun either in the shooting range or at home.
                  Which, as you understand, completely deprives possession of a pistol in the context of the topic. A person simply cannot use it outside his home.
                  And in the house, as you understand, you can store 20 gauge.
              2. -13
                20 January 2023 11: 14
                at the moment, if you want self-defense and self-respect: either join one of these categories, or resign yourself to the role of a victim.

                A gun will not help you, that's for sure, some of their problems of unsuccessful socialization are trying to be solved by faith in astrology, some by faith in a gun.
                With the same gopota, the right words are enough to disperse in peace, whoever cannot do this, and the gun will not help.
                1. +9
                  20 January 2023 15: 16
                  Quote: nickname7
                  With the same gopota, the right words are enough to disperse in peace, whoever cannot do this, and the gun will not help.

                  If a criminal is determined to commit a crime, he will try to commit it. What's the point of trying to stop him with words? Just distract.
              3. -12
                20 January 2023 13: 15
                No gun will help you against the "cold man"

              4. -3
                22 January 2023 04: 43
                I completely agree. All written correctly
            2. +21
              20 January 2023 09: 43
              Quote: Civil
              1. Nobody will allow anything. Because it's not supposed to be.

              Why shouldn't it?
              Yes, because the authorities are terribly afraid of armed people. Only units for its defense should be armed.
              That's the whole explanation of why such articles like this one appear. Mr. Staver on combat watch.
              1. +19
                20 January 2023 11: 31
                Quote from: skeptick2
                That's the whole explanation of why such articles like this one appear. Mr. Staver on combat watch.

                So I also thought that it would be possible to listen to the arguments of a person who is unbiased to this topic, even if I do not agree with him. But seriously to take Staver, smeared from head to toe in protective chatter? No, please.
              2. +5
                20 January 2023 12: 45
                That is, the authorities are not afraid of millions of rifled long-barrels on their hands, but are afraid of short-barrels? Strange logic.
                1. +2
                  20 January 2023 14: 47
                  Well, who has these millions of long-barrels on hand? What heresy? What millions?
                  Why are we banned from guns? Yes, because the authorities are afraid of their own people. Look at the United States, where the authorities have tremendous confidence in their people. Why haven't Americans shot each other yet?
                  1. +8
                    20 January 2023 14: 53
                    The United States, where the authorities have tremendous confidence in their people.
                    I talked quite a lot with the Americans, and I can notice that there is no smell of any trust from both sides.
                    1. +2
                      20 January 2023 15: 17
                      And yet, the shooting of all in all there still has not begun. Or are Americans just more civilized than us, hmm?
                      1. +4
                        20 January 2023 15: 38
                        shooting all in all there still hasn't started
                        A precarious balance, plus a fairly high standard of living for the majority, they have something to lose.
                      2. +2
                        20 January 2023 16: 09
                        Well, there are a lot of scumbags in America, nevertheless, the authorities are not afraid to give out weapons to the population, it's just not so easy for scumbags to get them. Well, for Americans, the right to personal ownership of weapons is a symbol of democracy and freedom, for which their ancestors fought.
                      3. +2
                        20 January 2023 16: 29
                        I also have something to lose, although I live below average, judging by the statistics (well, this is from my youth: I haven’t made it yet). So I'm sure most of us also have something to cling to.
                      4. +3
                        20 January 2023 17: 05
                        and in Moldova then why? in the Baltics?
                      5. +3
                        20 January 2023 17: 14
                        in the Baltics?
                        Contrary to the opinion of members of the forum, they don’t catch hedgehogs; they live quite decently and there are no racial and social contradictions comparable to American ones. But I don’t know about the Moldovans, I was there only once and not for long.
                      6. 0
                        20 January 2023 18: 16
                        So why do you need a pistol? Buy yourself a 12-gauge pump. I assure you, in the matter of protecting life and property, it will be much more useful.
                  2. +3
                    20 January 2023 16: 04
                    According to the National Guard, in 2020 - this is the most recent information - there were almost 6,5 million guns legally in the hands of the population
                    According to the Geneva Institute for International Research and Development, the Russians illegally bought and stored about 11 million barrels - 1,7 times more than the officially registered number.
                    1. +3
                      20 January 2023 21: 22
                      I would like to get acquainted with their methods of counting illegal barrels)))) Maybe you know? Well, do you refer? )))))))
                      1. 0
                        21 January 2023 11: 45
                        Write to them in Geneva, maybe they will explain.
                        I can only guess how they thought:
                        - most of the unregistered barrels are not a crime, but old-fashioned karamultuks that simply did not pass / were not re-registered. Very roughly, plus or minus a million of them can be counted - statistics on those purchased since the 1950s minus statistics on those handed over / re-registered since the same time.
                        But you can’t count the old at all, but one of my neighbors in the yard (the yard is such a chopped barn attached to the house) back in the 90s had an old infantry mosquito chambered for a cartridge with a rounded bullet, until he took it apart and scattered it in the forest in a swamp, I didn’t want to sit at this useless rusty arquebus.
                        - somehow they probably roughly estimate the number of criminal trunks, probably the cops have methods
                  3. +10
                    20 January 2023 16: 48
                    Their laws are just different. As far as I remember, the "Second Amendment" to the US Constitution, adopted on December 15, 1791, guarantees US citizens the right to keep and bear arms. But this is not the main thing, and the main thing is that the same amendment allows realizing the right of the US people to an armed uprising, mentioned in the text of the Declaration of Independence, in the event that the US government grossly violates the rights of Americans and the Constitution. Then the government will have an armed army against an unarmed population. Thus the founding fathers leveled the playing field. Do you think our officials will do this? am
                  4. +4
                    21 January 2023 20: 47
                    You don't have to look anywhere. In Russia, until 1918, there was a free sale of weapons, both hunting and short-barreled, with the exception of individual army samples. The Romanovs were not afraid of the oppressors of the people, but the people's power forbade it.
              3. +3
                22 January 2023 19: 08
                Yes, because the authorities are terribly afraid of armed people

                Agree. If you recall the history, free citizens always had the right to own weapons, the ban extended to slaves. We are just slaves to the "beloved elite"!
                And why the author connected the issue of short-barrels with issues of mobilization - I did not understand. A pistol is not allowed for a soldier, but for an officer - well, except to shoot himself, but the use in battle is so episodic that there is nothing to talk about.
          2. 0
            30 January 2023 00: 51
            ... - so you need to not allow "short-barreled". Ah... what logic! Fabulous! "Moustache" pancake "acquire" "short" "to carry the army GUARD of their homes ..." - Are you a NORMAL person ?! Or is the "ordinary jackal" retired?
        3. -7
          20 January 2023 14: 39
          Quote: Lech from Android.
          Why, then, do the criminals not attack armed policemen, military men, armed guards of various objects and persons?
          They attack, they attack armed collectors, they attack protected banks and shops. They attack armed and trained employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and not even for the sake of money, but in order to seize weapons.

          Do not deceive yourself - "peak in the liver, no one is eternal", if they want - they will attack, and they will attack suddenly, and the "magic pistol" will not help. If not to prevaricate, then the majority of those who are for a "kind word with a gun" need not so much the weapon itself, but the right to shoot anyone who might seem dangerous, and so that there is nothing for it according to the law. So, instead of a noble sword in front of the niello, the right to a "noble" shot. That's the whole point. Only, gentlemen, pistol "nobles", here and more "eminent" ones will also shoot at you, from glamorous chickens, with pistols donated by dads or majors on show-offs, with a brand new "Colt" or "Beretta", to forgetful moneybags and officials with connections. A mother of many children or a grandmother will not be able to buy herself and a simple Makarov.

          The most important thing is that security is not in weapons, but in the culture of society itself and the justice of the Law. Without this, no weapon will help, especially potential cowards and notorious youths. Weapons and so the sea, no need to exacerbate the problem by trying to deal with the consequences. The short-barrel is dangerous, first of all, by the secrecy of wearing and accessibility in use, and it’s not a fact that worthy people will have it, and not rich bastards. Return the people's power to the country, the equality of all before a just law, and you will be happy. Without the bourgeoisie, the times will return when the keys to the apartment were left under the rug at the door, and cashiers from the bank took money to the factories without armed guards.
          1. +12
            20 January 2023 16: 04
            Attack, attack armed collectors, attack protected banks and shops

            Didn't understand the logic. Those. if the collectors did not have weapons, they would not be attacked? An argument from the category - without a fire extinguisher there will be no fire, without a first aid kit there will be no injuries.
            No need to fool yourself

            Of course, it is not necessary, this is only a factor, when certain conditions coincide, which allows you to avoid or get out of the alteration alive, like the same fire extinguisher or first aid kit.
            1. -5
              20 January 2023 17: 06
              Quote: strannik1985
              I did not understand the logic.
              Rather, they did not want to understand. You took the beginning out of context without understanding the ending. Okay, let me explain. My aunt worked all her life in the USSR as a cashier, she used to carry a salary to the port for workers from the bank alone, there was no car, no escort, especially weapons. Of course, the car and the escort relied on the rules, but, clearly, no one had weapons at the same time. Why the "bazaar", people were different, our society was different, although, of course, not without separate Ukinds.

              The problem of crime is not in the absence of weapons, it is in the disease of society itself, in its stratification, impoverishment, the decline of culture and morality. No gun can cure this, no iron doors and bars, coupled with fences around apartment buildings.

              Some often have an interesting logic, they say, I have three shotguns, a rifled carbine and a trauma pistol, why can’t I also have a combat short-barrel? Indeed, why, why not immediately give a peasant a tank, if he was also a tanker in the army, they trusted him like that ...
              More demagogy about cars begins, how many die in an accident, let's ban cars then, cars are more dangerous than pistols ... In general, a person can be killed with a pencil, a shoelace, but this requires preparation, conditions, and any big man can bang from a pistol and first grader. Here, feel the difference. A coward with a gun will remain a coward, and, rather, such a coward, an egoist and a skin, will himself be more dangerous to society than a criminal. A pistol is not a "first aid kit" or a "fire extinguisher", it is a weapon, and a weapon in civilian life is much more dangerous than a knife or a cobblestone. Walking around with a gun can't be the norm. The fact that a criminal is always armed is why he is a criminal, in any case he will not abide by the rules and the Law, and in this he will be different, having the possibility of a first and vile strike.

              I am not against weapons, and I know their power, but I am against those for whom weapons are a whim, fashion, a cure for complexes. Listen to the arguments of eccentrics starting with the letter "m", arguing according to the plots of comics about protection and salvation ... Damn, "Batmans" and "Supermen" in wastelands. The whole point is that what could end in a banal fight will lead to murder with a gun in your pocket, and it is not a fact that it is a bad person who will die. We have a traffic accident, where there is a law and rules, there is enough negativity, and injustice, when people are excused with money and connections.
              As a result, I repeat, there are enough weapons, shops are breaking. Also, there is no need for "songs" about countries where the same hot Estonian guys would not have spoiled the statistics even without the legalization of the short barrel. Probably, they do not remember countries where almost everyone is armed and complete chaos among the poor and hungry bands of Africa. There are those who are allowed to carry weapons, and there are many of them. We need a competent and fair law, incorruptible judges, a socially oriented state, culture and morality, a well-fed and confident society. Without this, weapons, short barrels, will only exacerbate the problem, increase the level of danger.
              1. +7
                20 January 2023 17: 17
                Walking around with a gun can't be the norm.
                The Czechs, Serbs and Swiss will clearly disagree with you.
                1. +1
                  20 January 2023 18: 08
                  Not certainly in that way. If permission to own and store weapons is easy to obtain and almost everyone has it, then concealed carry permission is rarely given and only to professionals.

                  And open carrying - who needs it? If you walk around the streets hung with weapons, they will look like an idiot
                2. -3
                  21 January 2023 13: 24
                  Quote: Bolt Cutter
                  The Czechs, Serbs and Swiss will clearly disagree with you.
                  That's why they are Czechs, Serbs and Swiss, but I'm Russian and I don't live in Switzerland, where everyone who has served goes to a de facto lifelong mobilization reserve with army weapons and his ammunition. Come on, Alex, let's not be cunning and slide into demagoguery.

                  First, being against the legalization of short barrels does not mean being against self-defense. Personally, I am for the right of self-defense in all possible ways. What is the contradiction? It is necessary to distinguish the right to protection from the right to lynching. Killing another cannot be an automatically legal action with one right to own a weapon.

                  In his article, Alexander Staver talks about various weapons, leaving out of the brackets the main thing, what is its difference - the difference in the purpose of this weapon. Sports weapons for sports shooting, hunting weapons for hunting, and combat weapons for killing people. To this, in order to immediately cool the demagogues, it must be said that any object in general, a kitchen knife, a hammer, a pencil I have already mentioned, can be a weapon. The common thing is that in all cases there will be a use of objects not for their intended purpose. Naturally, it is easier to kill with a hammer than with a pencil, and much easier with a hunting rifle than with a hammer.

                  The legalization of military weapons is the legalization of the right to use them for their intended purpose, there are no other options here. These people stubbornly refuse to understand, believing that only they will have the right to punish or pardon, that only the possession of a pistol will become a talisman for them from villains. This alone is a utopia.

                  If we separate those who, out of thoughtlessness, just want the best, advocating the legalization of the short-barrel, there will remain stubborn "bulls" (I want and I will), undersized "Batmen" and "Supermen", living in the parallel reality of computer shooters, and people with complexes, for whom the trunk is like a prosthesis of their weak brutality. However, there are those who understand everything perfectly, but for them military weapons are an object of privilege, their exclusivity, which separates them from the rest of the people, who are plebos, mob for them. Such people will not stand up for anyone, all these plots from comics are nothing more than the chatter of egoists and cowards. A civilian should not pretend to be a "sheriff", replace the Law, the police and the court, and, for reasons of personal security assessment, pass a death sentence on another.

                  If you do not want to understand this, I am personally very sorry, I would like you to at least think about it. There are enough weapons and the problem is not in its absence, but in a fair interpretation of self-defense by ANY object as a weapon or by the weapon itself, but without legitimizing lynching, without legalizing the right to kill, which can only be as an accident, or as a necessary measure. Still, Russia is not Switzerland, and when they remember the rights there, they somehow do not want to remember the accompanying duties and other features of local history and culture.
                  1. +2
                    21 January 2023 14: 46
                    stubborn "bulls" (I want and I will), undersized "Batmen" and "Supermen", living in the parallel reality of computer shooters, and people with complexes, for whom the trunk is like a prosthesis of their weak brutality.
                    In Latvia, I personally knew people who did not part with a gun - adequate, educated, self-sufficient people. A good friend from Prague was given a revolver by her father - a doctor by profession, holder of a scientific degree. So get past all your arguments.
                    replace the law, the police and the courts
                    Let the police be a minute away, but seconds matter.
                    Russia is not Switzerland
                    And not even Latvia belay ,In your?
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. -1
                        21 January 2023 22: 57
                        Would be silent, "Swiss banker" tongue
                    2. -3
                      21 January 2023 20: 37
                      Quote: Bolt Cutter
                      And not even Latvia, in your opinion?
                      Not Latvia, if in my opinion, not even Ukraine. We must live our reality, first of all, otherwise, we will have to remember that somewhere there are LGBT people or light drugs are legalized, and, they say, it’s okay, people live ...

                      Believe me, I love weapons, and I served my own, and I was fond of sports shooting. But, there is common sense, and the way some people imagine the legalization of the short barrel, in many ways, seems to be a whim.

                      I would very much not like that here the phrase from Chernomyrdin's winged tongue-tied tongue - "We wanted the best, but it turned out as always" became an epitaph, both for the newly-minted "batmen" and their random victims. In the end, there are many countries where, even without the legalization of military weapons, it is quiet and calm, but some people prefer the sayings of the scumbag Al Capone and the heritage from the Wild West in the manners of the Anglo-Saxons.
                      Such, here, reflections, if in my opinion.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
              2. +3
                20 January 2023 20: 29
                My aunt worked all her life in the USSR as a cashier

                You are engaged in demagoguery, how does having the ability to defend yourself prevent you from transforming the economy / finance / propaganda? Until the 60s in the Union, officials could legally own pistols.
                Indeed, why, why not immediately give a peasant a tank, if he was also a tanker in the army, they trusted him like that ...

                https://miniteh.com/Voennaya-tehnika/BTR/
                https://tehclub.site/katalog/konversionnaya-tehnika/tanki-repliki-nastoyashhih
                In general, a person can be killed with a pencil, a shoelace, but this requires preparation, conditions, and a first grader can bang from a pistol of any big man

                Quite right, the labor costs for training a shooter and a martial artist differ by orders of magnitude, that's the whole point of the need for a CS.
                Probably, they do not remember countries where almost everyone is armed and complete chaos among the poor and hungry bands of Africa.

                Does legalization mean the abolition of the police? wink
                There are those who are allowed to carry weapons, and there are many of them.

                Quite right, for example, owners of premium weapons, in 2019 in Russia there are 16,7 thousand units of premium rifled firearms (mainly pistols). Approximately 10% were awarded by the heads of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
                https://www.fontanka.ru/2017/03/02/045/
                1. -2
                  21 January 2023 10: 09
                  Does legalization mean the abolition of the police?

                  Of course not. On the contrary, they will also increase the staff.
                  At what the police will start shooting at everything that moves suspiciously. Just out of a sense of self-preservation, assuming the offender has a gun. Just like in the USA.
                  Do you want it?
                  1. 0
                    24 January 2023 11: 34
                    Well, at least look at "the use of weapons by the police in the USA", there are excellent videos on YouTube, how long they persuade them to throw the barrel, unless, of course, they didn’t start naughty at first.
                2. -1
                  21 January 2023 13: 52
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  You are engaged in demagoguery, how does having the ability to defend yourself prevent you from transforming the economy / finance / propaganda?
                  It is not I who do not engage in demagogy, I distinguish between the possibility of self-defense and the legalized right to kill. Combat weapons, which we are talking about, have no other purpose, in contrast to hunting or sports.

                  Quote: strannik1985
                  Does legalization mean the abolition of the police?

                  Does legalization really mean the elimination of crime? I don’t want to repeat myself, but I don’t believe in “supermen” and “batmans”, which all those who suffer to get a pocket barrel should become. Fools with "guns", which are more dangerous than bandits, will definitely be added.
                  1. 0
                    21 January 2023 17: 40
                    I distinguish the possibility of self-defense from the legal right to kill

                    I understand correctly, you think that it is impossible to kill criminals in self-defense?
                    Does legalization really mean the elimination of crime?

                    Of course not, just as the presence of a fire extinguisher does not mean the abolition of fires, and first-aid kits - injuries and diseases. It's just a self-help tool, nothing more.
                    1. +1
                      23 January 2023 10: 49
                      Quote: strannik1985
                      I understand correctly, you think that it is impossible to kill criminals in self-defense?

                      You are changing concepts. Self-defense is not a synonym for the use of a combat pistol, all the more, immediately to defeat, as a death sentence. The second, who is considered a criminal, one will be nasty, the other will shove or hit, the third will put a knife to the throat. For a "cowboy" with a pistol, the answer is practically the same in all cases - to get the barrel, and force yourself to respect. Word for word, especially on emotions, in an accident, in a restaurant, at the entrance of a high-rise building.

                      What's next, took out the trunk, and what? I wanted to scare, you can scare with a fake toy. I didn’t want to kill, for this an injury will do, which, at the same time, can’t be distinguished from a combat pistol, like a high-quality toy, pneumatics. No, this is not the point, it is necessary to kill, and in such a way that there is nothing for it according to the Law. This is what many sufferers of increasing their greatness suffer from.

                      The question is, will they need a barrel if, when using it, they are sued for exceeding the necessary self-defense? The problem is that a man who, while defending his family from armed bandits, cut them with a kitchen knife, can be sued, and a squeamish man with a gun, who killed innocent people out of fright, can be acquitted in self-defense.


                      Self-defense is not the right to kill, but if this is a necessary measure, it should not matter what the person defended himself with, what he used as a weapon. At the same time, the possession of a combat pistol should not give an automatic right to kill. This is what we are talking about, a gun should not be a legal right to kill, and comparing it with a first-aid kit and a fire extinguisher is cynicism, demagoguery. We need a strong, social state, a cultural society, and most importantly, fair laws. We also need a clear law on self-defense, with any weapon and any object as a weapon, if it is a matter of life and death, and not just the legalization of a short barrel with special rights for their owners. Excuse me, this is my understanding of justice and legality for the benefit of the whole society.
          2. +1
            20 January 2023 22: 23
            Absolutely right. And respect for the people's militia will appear as once.
        4. +3
          20 January 2023 16: 49
          Quote: Lech from Android.
          Why, then, do the criminals not attack armed policemen, military men, armed guards of various objects and persons?

          So it all depends on the goals of the attack in Ufa, two collectors were burned alive by unarmed bandits with ordinary gasoline.
          In Ufa, the brothers decided to set fire to collectors to pay off their debts
          One bank employee died, another is in hospital with serious burns

          Read on WWW.UFA.KP.RU: https://www.ufa.kp.ru/daily/26429.7/3301159/

          This audacious and cruel crime thundered throughout Bashkiria. Three brothers attacked collectors who were delivering money to ATMs. Everything happened like in an action movie about the 90s: the men were doused with gasoline and set on fire.

          Read on WWW.UFA.KP.RU: https://www.ufa.kp.ru/daily/26429.7/3301159/
        5. +1
          24 January 2023 23: 02
          Quote: Lech from Android.
          Although I sometimes see that some policemen carry pistols in the most careless way in crowded places, criminals can very easily seize it.

          not only pistols, but also submachine guns.
          This is especially true of the current National Guard, the former outsider...
          I remember how a couple came up to us for a drink, we laughed for a long time arguing for how many seconds and how we will disarm them, and in their presence, until their boss (like a neighbor) came out of my entrance and stuck them ...
      2. +18
        20 January 2023 14: 36
        In front of your eyes, three beat one with bats. Your actions. Having a barrel in the pocket of 50 percent of citizens may not be allowed to kill a person. And without weapons, 0.1% will get into a fight. The rest will pretend that they don’t notice. Correct me if I’m wrong somewhere.
        1. -8
          20 January 2023 17: 32
          Quote: Vasilich2217
          Before your eyes, three beat one with bits
          Vasilich, the one who, according to your story, was "beaten with bats" could, therefore, be beaten if he had a gun that he did not have time to get. Secondly, if your savior from those 50% saw that in addition to the bits the villains had a couple of "Kalash", this average "hero" would come in to intercede, or is a hero with a machine gun already needed? So it turns out that not everything is so simple from the mere presence of a gun.
        2. 0
          21 January 2023 09: 03
          Your actions.

          In fact, the first action is to call and inform the police. Supporters of the short-barrel somehow do not come to mind. After all, you need to get your Glock and put the insolent people in their place :))
        3. 0
          24 January 2023 19: 40
          Why are you writing nonsense yourself, and why not so three beat one from whom they noticed a gun and wanted to take it away, from one attacker a bit, and the other two combat pistols taken away from people like you - your action!? Wanna die and get shot? Or are you walking down the street from a bakery and they hit you on the head with a brick from behind, they take away a pistol and they make a control one in you for verification? Your actions ?
      3. +3
        20 January 2023 18: 16
        But the chances will be equal, and if the attacker is lucky, for example, he somehow manages to bang me armed, then it will not be very offensive to measure, the chances were equal. And if I am unarmed.
      4. +1
        20 January 2023 20: 35
        Persons leading an antisocial lifestyle, abusing alcoholism, having criminal and administrative offenses, weapons should not be issued, also mental, and persons who have not served in the army, of course, to prescribe all this legislatively in the law on weapons ...
    2. +7
      20 January 2023 06: 23
      In Izhevsk in September last year
      offended by the whole world, a minor with two altered injuries killed 17 people in a few minutes ... six adults, two security guards and other schoolchildren ... everyone was unarmed and defenseless ... for some reason this story was quickly closed with complete silence ... our favorite the state is absolutely powerless in protecting citizens against such attacks

      And in the United States, where weapons are allowed and almost everyone is armed, there are regular attacks on schools with a large number of victims. And how does this correlate with the presence / absence of weapons among the population? NO WAY!
      1. +15
        20 January 2023 07: 25
        Ownership and ownership are two different things. It is not even allowed to approach the school with a weapon within a certain distance. Now there is a question about permission to carry weapons for teachers. I think that this is correct. Teachers must undergo additional training of course.
        1. 0
          20 January 2023 11: 12
          Before the first execution by the teacher of a schoolboy from a "service" weapon.
          1. +1
            20 January 2023 11: 59
            And he will certainly follow, and you won’t have to wait long: some kids will not be able to give up their favorite entertainment “bring the teacher”, even knowing that he is armed. And the passage of professional selection and psychological testing by a teacher does not guarantee that his nerves are stronger than ropes. Anyone can bring.
            1. 0
              21 January 2023 19: 31
              I myself have a pedagogical education and experience working with difficult teenagers. Nerves were on edge, but there was no desire to grab a weapon. There is already a question of recruitment, but this is a separate issue.
      2. +15
        20 January 2023 09: 17
        Quote: Amateur
        And in the United States, where weapons are allowed and almost everyone is armed, there are regular attacks on schools with a large number of victims. And how does this correlate with the presence / absence of weapons among the population? NO WAY!

        We do not allow weapons, and attacks on schools nevertheless occur regularly, so maybe it’s not about gun permits?
        1. +8
          20 January 2023 10: 01
          so maybe it's not a matter of gun permits?
          The point, as usual, is in the bubble. They do not allocate funds for educating people in the spirit of respect for each other. Movies are filled with the refrain: "You have a weapon - you are superman, take whatever you want. You can"! Etc. etc. As long as there is a ride on animal instincts, the issue will not be resolved. The USSR did a lot in this direction, but it was also destroyed by those who lived by instincts. Everything, of course, is more complicated, but in my opinion it is necessary to go from this "stove". To educate a person, not an animal, and over time (very large), there will be fewer animals and they will stop imposing animal behavior on people. If this is not done, first of all by those who govern the state, then the collapse of civilization is simply inevitable.
          1. +3
            20 January 2023 11: 37
            Quote: AKuzenka
            The point, as usual, is in the bubble. They do not allocate funds for educating people in the spirit of respect for each other.

            It's not about the bubble, social being determines social consciousness, you can't say better than a classic. With the current "public life" allocate any amount of money (everything will be plundered early), norms different from respect for each other become the law of survival of one's own family.
          2. +2
            20 January 2023 11: 38
            Do you propose to indicate in the budget a separate line "to educate people in a spirit of respect for each other"? How many billions will we allocate? I am sure that there will be a lot of people who want to master it, and they will provide plans, and beautiful reports ... Well, what's the point - as always. Only someone will have a new yacht, and people of a lower rank will have a new car or summer house.
        2. 0
          20 January 2023 11: 56
          We have weapons - ALLOWED. And you can buy it (subject to certain formalities) freely.
          If a person is not a psycho and not a delinquent, get a certificate, permission and go buy. Generally without problems (well, except for the prices, of course).
          Those who really need it, or really want it, have weapons. And those who do not need it (and such 80% of the population), with any simplification, will not throw money away and buy weapons.
          I have several barrels, both smoothbore and rifled.

          But we are talking about the "legalization" of the short barrel. Here I agree 100% with Staver. Why do you need a short barrel at all and to whom?
          I explain - most of those who use weapons do not need these useless farts at all. Quite quite. As in the army, a gun is just an extra and harmful extra load.
          And you need a short barrel for only one reason - the possibility of hidden wearing.
          Who needs? Yes, that's who - most of the short-barreled fans are "offended in life." Mentally unbalanced, insecure losers who were kicked by normal mentally healthy children since childhood. Who think that if they have a gun, they will have an erection and women will give.
          And with any "legalization", no weapon more serious than a plastic table knife can be given to such people anyway.
          And the talk about self-defense is just demagogy. Firstly, street crime is at a low level. Secondly, pepper spray for self-defense is many times more useful than any pistol.
          1. +8
            20 January 2023 15: 22
            Quote: El Barto
            Mentally unbalanced, insecure losers who were kicked by normal mentally healthy children since childhood.

            Kicked mentally healthy children, what? It seems to me that they were not so healthy then, since they behaved like animals.
            1. The comment was deleted.
          2. 0
            3 February 2023 00: 46
            ... - that's when you "persons, consisting of" "citizens who do not speak the language", or "who speak", but with "blue on their fingers" "grab by the balls" in the situation "was walking from the store" walking distance "in the evening, in the dark time of the day "- so you will tell us about the benefits of pepper spray ... bully - when you can speak (... if you can - God forbid...).
      3. +15
        20 January 2023 09: 54
        In the USA there are 5 murders per year per 100 thousand of the population, and in Russia 8 murders. A firearm is a great equalizer. In America, this was understood in the 19th century. And to this day we pretend not to understand.
        1. -8
          20 January 2023 11: 36
          In the US, 5 homicides per year per 100 people

          You write nonsense in the states, they shoot every day on the streets in clubs in stores, and this has ceased to be in the news if there are few victims. Mass shootings get into the news, so it seems that there are few of them. On big holidays, there are cases when they shoot at the crowd, and some students are afraid to go to school because they might be killed. In the USA, a real tragedy in the killings due to the fact that you can easily buy an assault rifle /



          During the US Independence Day holiday weekend, a real carnage unfolded in the country: 379 people died as a result of 142 shooting incidents. This is reported by the Daily Mail, citing data from the Gun Violence Archive research group, which monitors cases of violence in the country.

          Most of these incidents were recorded in Chicago - there were 92 cases of shooting, during which 16 people died, another 76 were injured.

          In second place was Philadelphia, where seven people died, 17 were injured, and 21 others were injured during various conflicts over the weekend.

          At the same time, according to Fox News, 2 incidents were identified in New York between July 4 and 21, with 26 people among the victims. Last year, on the same days, 25 citizens were injured in 30 cases of the use of firearms. CNN noted that in 2021, the number of such crimes in the city as a whole has greatly increased - in comparison with last year, the figure jumped by 40 percent.
          1. +8
            20 January 2023 12: 05
            You write nonsense in the states, they shoot every day on the streets in clubs in stores, and this has ceased to be in the news if there are few victims.

            They write to you: 5 murders per 100 thousand of the population per year (I will take the figure from the commentary on faith), that is, 15 thousand per 300 million of the population, 50 people a day end up, including with firearms. So where is the contradiction with your "shoot every day"? Here are just the second part of the statistics - 8 per 100 thousand in Russia, that is, 12 thousand per country per year, 35 people per day with more than half the population, and without any legal access of citizens to weapons, you preferred to ignore. Love double standards and lies by default?
        2. +1
          20 January 2023 12: 15
          This is lies and demagogy.
          The death rate from firearms per 100 people has risen from 000 per 10,3 in 100 to 000 per 1999 in 12, with 100 people dying per day or a total of about 000 homicides.
          Between 1990 and 2021, more than 1,1 million people died from firearms in the United States.

          And that's just for murders. And how many other crimes with the use of firearms?
          1. +4
            20 January 2023 12: 42
            This is lies and demagogy.
            The death rate from firearms per 100 people has risen from 000 per 10,3 in 100 to 000 per 1999 in 12, with 100 people dying per day or a total of about 000 homicides.

            You first check your own numbers on a calculator before accusing someone of lying - it seems that they are not only taken from the ceiling, but also completely contradict each other.
            12 murders per 100 thousand of the population with a population of more than 300 million would give more than 36 thousand murders a year, and by no means 14542, like yours. And how many days do you have in a year? If 365, then 109 corpses per day, this, again, is about 37 thousand per year, and not 14542. So in summary: worse than a lie can only be a lie that contradicts itself.
            1. +3
              20 January 2023 13: 05
              Mortality includes not only murders.
              This is also
              -TTP subsequently resulting in death,
              -suicide
              - Careless handling of weapons
        3. +2
          20 January 2023 15: 31
          In the US, 5 murders per year
          Moreover, at least 3 of them are disassembly of ethnic gangs among themselves.
      4. +11
        20 January 2023 11: 04
        Quote: Amateur
        And in the United States, where weapons are allowed and almost everyone is armed, there are regular attacks on schools with a large number of victims.

        There is one subtle point here: the vast majority of these attacks take place in gun-free zones. That is, where the criminal is 146% sure that no one will be able to provide armed resistance to him - and suits hunting in the zoo.

        The most egregious case was, of course, in Fort Hood in 2009 - the shooter at the military base had to be stopped not by the army, not by the military police, but by the army civilian police, who usually work on the outer perimeter of military facilities and interact with civilians. Because only they had weapons.
        1. +6
          20 January 2023 16: 53
          The best videos from Texas, which has the lowest crime rate in the US. There, the offender often only manages to pull out the barrel when he is already being felled from several sides.
          And very often even the old lady's dandelions wink
      5. +1
        20 January 2023 12: 05
        Correlates, and how! There are many times fewer such armed attacks in Russia than in the United States. Why? Yes, because in the Shooting States of America the most firearms are in the hands of the population and the most freedom to acquire, store, transport and carry them. The truth is as simple as God's day: the denser and thicker the clouds in the sky, the stronger the rain, the more weapons in the hands of the population, the more it shoots at people. And, by the way, in the overwhelming majority of cases, armed criminals who used weapons on citizens in the United States are still stopped by law enforcement officers, and not ordinary citizens. Practice shows that the problem of protecting citizens from armed attacks should be solved not by increasing the number of weapons in the hands of the population, but by reducing it. During the late Soviet era, there were far fewer armed attacks than in post-Soviet Russia, the United States, and many other countries, because there were far fewer firearms in circulation and in the hands of the population, especially short-barreled ones. An increase in the number of firearms on hand also entails its more active use in everyday life, as well as suicides. If a wife hits her husband or mother-in-law with a frying pan on the head during a family showdown, then the victims run the risk of receiving, as a rule, a moderate head injury, but what if she shoots at them? there is no need to talk about men. It is even easier for them to assert themselves by using firearms rather than fists or knives. And how much easier is it to commit suicide with a pistol than to hang yourself or throw yourself from a height? In general, it is necessary to reduce the number of weapons in the hands of the population, and not to increase them, to tighten the rules for their circulation, storage and carrying, and not to liberalize, and also to increase the responsibility for their violation. Well, in order to increase the security of citizens, it is necessary to demand that employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and other law enforcement agencies be not office workers, but do not serve at posts, on patrols and are ready for immediate departure on calls from citizens.
      6. +1
        21 January 2023 09: 04
        The example is unsuccessful. In US schools, law-abiding citizens are prohibited from carrying weapons, so criminals are drawn there - there is no one to answer.
      7. 0
        24 January 2023 11: 42
        Most of the attacks with guns in the states occur just in the gun-free zones (Gun-free zones) you can read the article "Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster"
    3. +17
      20 January 2023 06: 24
      Only a free man owns a weapon, try to take something away from him. The state simply considers its people not worthy of being free ((((Think about it, this is not about selling short-barreled barrels in the bread departments of stores. A medical examination and a license are required, rifled weapons must be fired before they are sold and no one will go to rob with him, it's like leave a business card. You don't ban frying pans and kitchen knives, but it is with them that the largest percentage of crimes. It's all about the fear of the authorities of a free person, it is more difficult to control them.
      1. +20
        20 January 2023 07: 54
        Exactly! The authorities are afraid of a free and armed citizen, so they will never allow this.
        1. +23
          20 January 2023 10: 45
          The authorities are afraid of a free and armed citizen, so they will never allow this.
          I agree! They are not afraid that the people will shoot each other, they are generally deeply and irrevocably against the people. The people for them are biomass, taxpayers and the electorate. If they die - don't care, the women will give birth to new ones, or we will bring migrants.
        2. +1
          20 January 2023 13: 42
          and how will the presence of a pistol allow you to get a VUS of an ATGM operator?
        3. +5
          20 January 2023 16: 57
          The second amendment in the US constitution says that if the US government grossly violates the rights of Americans and the Constitution, then the real citizens are OBLIGED to overthrow this government. But then the government will have an armed army against an unarmed population, and for this it is necessary to legalize the possession of weapons. Just leveling the odds. Imagine something like this?
      2. +13
        20 January 2023 09: 55
        In the Scandinavian saga, it is remarkably postulated that possession of weapons is not a right, but a duty of a free person. For only it guarantees this freedom of yours ..

        But! As the owner of several barrels with many years of experience, I am convinced that before allowing such a dangerous thing as a short barrel, it is necessary to create a STRUCTURE for this. A wide network of shooting ranges, shooting galleries, training courses, etc., etc. And most importantly - to work on the brains of the population .. For a weapon in itself, without the ability to wield it, is not worth anything. Moreover, it is dangerous for the owner himself, as it creates all sorts of illusions in him .. Which can cost him and those around him dearly. We need a weapon culture, and only then possession ..

        After all, it would seem that everyone understands that if we say a fellow in the Middle Ages manages to get a sword, this will not solve any of his problems. Moreover, he will be perceived as a warrior by his presence, and treated accordingly. And he doesn't know how to use it! With all the consequences at the first skirmish. Why is it considered that this does not apply to a pistol? Yes, you will get tired of it in the winter to start pulling it out of winter clothes! No habit. Habits are only developed through practice. What nonecha - clearly no one will do just out of laziness. Referring to the firearm as some kind of magical amulet that protects the owner by the very fact of its existence ..
        1. +7
          20 January 2023 10: 45
          Dear Pavel. For 27 years I had the right to bear arms, and as soon as I retired in 2010, I lost it. Interestingly, where did my pistol skills disappear right away in retirement?
          1. +7
            20 January 2023 11: 06
            Carrying weapons and wielding skills are still somewhat different things .. The Vatican guards also march with halberds - but I strongly doubt that they know how to use them.
            1. +1
              24 January 2023 10: 39
              Well, I not only had the right to wear. And I also used it - 9 years in the teaching staff and 3 years as a district police officer in the 90s somehow raise the skills of possession rather robustly. Plus 3 months of a business trip to the war zone, where he gained skills in mastering the PKK and SVD. And in the intelligence regiment of the GRU equipment in 83-84 they taught me to use Kalash. But he retired and that's it ... He immediately forgot how to hold a weapon in his hands and became a potentially dangerous type. So maybe let's immediately disarm the police, among them the Evsyukovs meet, and the army does not need weapons - otherwise they shoot at their own at the shooting ranges and desert with it. Better as in Petty Britain - he rebuffed the robber and sat down instead of him, for causing him moral suffering.
        2. +7
          20 January 2023 11: 32
          We need a weapon culture, and only then possession ..

          Here, below, they already answered such an argument - the same thing as first passing on the rights, and then for the first time in your life to drive a car. It’s even cooler here - for the first time to see a car (gun) live. How can there be a culture of what is not? Gun ownership culture without gun ownership? Nonsense! However, now this is how surgeons are taught in our country - since the teacher is responsible for all the jambs of the trainee, they only give young people to look, and read books, maximum - hold the hooks, and operate - let them do it themselves, after receiving the crust, at their own responsibility ( if anything - I'm a doctor, but we were still taught differently).
          1. -5
            20 January 2023 12: 47
            But who told you that our population does not have weapons?
            Our population has more weapons in their hands than in Brazil, while the population is 1,5 times less.
            Here is the opinion of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime:
            “An important indicator that determines the calmness in the country is the low number of firearms among the population. The more guns and pistols in the hands of the inhabitants, the higher the likelihood of crimes or accidents.

            The anti-rating by the number of weapons looks like this:

            USA - 39334700.

            India - 71101000.

            China - 49735000.

            Pakistan - 43917000.

            Russia - 17620000.

            Brazil - 17510000.

            Mexico - 16809000.

            Germany - 15822000.

            Yemen - 14859000."
          2. +1
            20 January 2023 16: 39
            Gun ownership culture without gun ownership?

            Well, yes - exams, or there they introduced a minimum of type for nothing .. And the legal aspects of owning and using weapons - will you also begin to study only after receiving the barrel? Weak at first, let's say a dozen workouts in the shooting range to go through? To at least put the store with the right end? I'm just silent for the ability to at least hit the target ..
          3. +2
            20 January 2023 18: 11
            those. Let's allow pistols to be given out indiscriminately, we will get several tens of thousands of dead from crossbows and inability to handle weapons in order to get "culture"? ?
      3. -5
        20 January 2023 11: 55
        Only a free man owns a weapon, try to take something away from him

        Free to free strife, someone is sitting at home with his mother, he has no friends, and someone will gather a gang of strong guys, as a result, your freedom will end with the fact that a gun is thrust into you, in general, it will not help you, because strength is in numbers, in skills, in connections, not freedom.
        Watch at least westerns on the wild west there was your favorite time.
        In the free world, the rich and arrogant always have an advantage, our 90s will not let you lie. For the common man, strong power is better than freedom with anarchy
        .
        1. +7
          20 January 2023 13: 05
          will gather a gang of strong guys
          And will they gather, knowing that one of them will be fixed in a cemetery or a wheelchair while demonstrating their own strength?
        2. +2
          20 January 2023 16: 41
          Yes. I had familiar bandos in the 90s .. Five years later, there were only two left from the brigade. Who thought hard about the question - do they live correctly? And it hurts that the score was not in their favor. And now - a long time ago quite respectable citizens ..
      4. 0
        20 January 2023 12: 20
        Who's stopping you then? Get help, permission and go buy a gun.
        Our population, under 8 million, only has official trunks in their hands, and no one counted how many unregistered
        1. +2
          20 January 2023 13: 40
          I will reveal a terrible secret - even if pistols are allowed, those who are not buying a shotgun now, but demand to legalize CSR will not buy it .. these are Wishlist
    4. +14
      20 January 2023 07: 05
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      killed in a few minutes 17 people ...

      For a few minutes? Actually 18 people and 23 wounded. Yes, and managed to get from the first to the fourth floor. How is it possible in a few minutes?

      It took the shooter more than 50 minutes. And no one stopped him. And he killed himself.

      Quote: Lech from Android.
      for some reason this story was quickly closed with complete silence ...

      Yes. Because the GBR (Russian Guardsmen) really arrived in a few minutes (they are located there very close to the school). The school security guard managed to press the alarm button.
    5. +12
      20 January 2023 07: 23
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      Before talking about a ban on weapons, any such writers need to explain to people

      What to explain? The people understand it. The authors who fully support the point of view of the state - too. The people should be as unarmed as possible. I hope everyone understands why...
      In one of the schools, they also tried to offer protection - a gray-haired old man armed with a hand-held metal detector. How he can ensure the safety of thousands of children in a three-story building, no one has explained ...
      1. +2
        20 January 2023 09: 07
        Sometimes there is a choice between at least something or no...
        At the very least, the "gray-haired old man" can buy time.
        1. +7
          20 January 2023 09: 39
          Quote: JcVai
          At the very least, the "gray-haired old man" can buy time.

          Are you serious?
          Against an armed man?
      2. AUL
        +13
        20 January 2023 09: 22
        Quote: Doccor18
        What to explain? The people understand it. The authors who fully support the point of view of the state - too.

        The author, of course, is an experienced demagogue! A master of inflating not particularly reliable data (as, for example, in Switzerland and Scandinavia) and ignoring facts that are inconvenient for him (for example, about a decrease in crime in the Baltic states and Moldova, the availability of weapons for criminals). But to incite the most respectable public - yes, this is possible!
        1. +11
          20 January 2023 09: 42
          Quote from AUL
          The master inflates not particularly reliable data (as, for example, in Switzerland and Scandinavia) ...

          Yeah. I specifically looked at different ratings of depression in the population from 2013 to 2021. Neither Switzerland nor Norway are in the top five in Europe ...

          Quote from AUL
          But to incite the most respectable public - yes, this is possible!

          It is sacred.
          1. -1
            20 January 2023 12: 39
            Demagoguery is an attempt to link the presence / absence of weapons with the level of crime. Which has completely different reasons of a socio-economic nature.
            And examples of small rural countries with a small sparse population are not correct at all. If we compare Russia with the United States, Mexico and Brazil. And compare the Baltic States and Moldova with Belarus, where the crime rate is much lower.

            In February 2017, Belarus ranked 10th in the crime and safety rating, which includes 125 countries. The rating is published by the Numbeo portal.
            Of the closest neighbors of Belarus, Poland ranked 30th, Latvia - 40th, Lithuania - 50th, Russia -67th, Ukraine - 85th.
            The top three most dangerous countries in the world are Honduras (123rd), Papua New Guinea (124th) and Venezuela (125th).
            1. 0
              20 January 2023 13: 02
              Poland ranked 30th, Latvia - 40th, Lithuania - 50th, Russia -67th, Ukraine - 85th.
              A purely subjective experience, except for Russia, was in all of the above countries. Both my wife and I felt completely safe, which, by the way, was neither in England nor in France - I was instinctively half-way there, admiring the city at night, as in Kyiv, by the way. There, even taxi drivers told me that it’s better not to walk at night . Something like this. And about Belarus, I doubt the objectivity of statistics, but father has everything Yes under control.
              1. 0
                20 January 2023 13: 38
                If subjectively, then in Minsk (as in Moscow time and St. Petersburg) it is quite calm at night.
                What can not be said about the night Copenhagen, Helsinki and let's say Basel. And it's not about weapons, but about mass public alcoholism of the population, especially on Friday evening
                1. 0
                  20 January 2023 13: 48
                  I don't travel. And for many years in Switzerland, and not as some kind of useless IT tosser, but as a "high-ranking servant of capital."
                  This is your quote. So you are about yourself, beloved smile tell on December 4th laughing . So to believe you is not to respect yourself. A week in Copenhagen no one I didn't see a drunk, by the way.
                  1. -2
                    20 January 2023 15: 02
                    Places to know :)
                    Next time you visit Strøget or Vesterbro
                    1. 0
                      20 January 2023 15: 05
                      visit Strøget or Vesterbro
                      There are offices of international banks wassat ? I didn't even see drunks in Christiania.
                      1. -2
                        20 January 2023 15: 26
                        This is because you are a cultural tourist, and even with your wife. And in this Westerbro I spent almost 2 thousand from a credit card overnight, moving with colleagues from one tavern to another.
                        Meeting at 8:30 in the morning. It was a terrible day.
                      2. 0
                        20 January 2023 15: 52
                        It was necessary to take "Gulfstream" and to Karelia, to steam off in a bathhouse Yes before the meeting. Moreover, the bars there (in Copenhagen) are filled up to 3 (and even then not all), and on weekdays they are empty after 11 in general.
                      3. 0
                        20 January 2023 16: 43
                        Gulf streams are for the upper bourgeoisie, not for office rats.
                        But one should not think that only business travelers who stagger around the taverns until closing create an alcoholic background there. The bulk are still local. And yes on a business day
                      4. -2
                        20 January 2023 17: 06
                        But one should not think that only business travelers who stagger around the taverns until closing create an alcoholic background there.
                        After midnight, even the local policeman (he knew his hometown a little laughing ) could not help us find the tavern. But in general, yes, a convincing version good . Only Zelensky is more truthful than you Yes .
                      5. The comment was deleted.
    6. +14
      20 January 2023 09: 47
      ".how can an ordinary person protect himself before the arrival of the police so that he is not killed during this time?"
      According to our laws, a person does not have the right to protection. If the attacking criminal is harmed, you will be prosecuted for grievous bodily harm. And it doesn't matter where it was: on the street or in your house. Full of examples! We need, first of all, a law on self-defense. My home is my castle! Like this. As long as there is no law on self-defense, the law on weapons is useless.
      And when attacked, never admit that you hit first at all. They pushed me, dodged, they wanted to hit me, but they hit me in their own way, stepped on him, slipped and fell, etc. Depending on the situation. In front of witnesses and cameras, never be the first to hit. Yes, there are many options.
      1. +6
        20 January 2023 12: 03
        According to our laws, a person does not have the right to protection. If the attacking criminal is harmed, you will be prosecuted for grievous bodily harm.

        I completely agree with this, this is not the order, in the states if there is evidence that someone is being attacked, while the victim shoots the attacker, then nothing will happen to him. On the one hand, the police are cool in protecting citizens, on the other hand, self-defense is prohibited. This must be fought by demanding the adoption of a law, in self-defense. But personal possession of a pistol will not solve the problem of either offense or self-defense.
    7. +14
      20 January 2023 10: 31
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      The author made an emphasis on extraneous things.

      The author spent a lot of words to prove that a criminal "can" have a weapon (not because he "can", but because he has), but a law-abiding citizen cannot. That's the whole story. That's when the state seizes ALL (!!!) weapons from criminals, then we'll talk - does a citizen need to have a short barrel?
      According to the Constitution, all citizens of the Russian Federation are equal, or are criminals, those who have weapons, more equal?
    8. +3
      20 January 2023 13: 38
      then it makes sense to ask another question .. if you were attacked, and you NOW have neither a shocker nor pepper spray with you, then why would you suddenly go and buy Makarov or TT for your wife when legalizing pistols? That's right .. don't buy it. Now we need to take into account the moment that it is necessary to change the legislation in terms of self-defense.
    9. AAK
      +9
      20 January 2023 14: 52
      To the author, then, first of all, it is necessary to ban kitchen knives and axes for chopping and chopping firewood - ten times more people are killed with them than with registered weapons, while criminals, as a rule, use unregistered weapons ...
      I also continue to be a supporter of the mandatory storage of weapons with the assigned contingent in reserve, as they do in Israel, Cyprus and the same Switzerland (they can by no means be classified as the most criminal. In contrast, for example, from the same Brazil, where with the use of weapons, crimes are committed hundreds of times more). I think that the author is somewhat distorting, not giving specific statistics for the same Switzerland - out of the number of armed crimes and suicides, how many were committed by weapons that the reservists kept, how many by native Swiss, and how many by all sorts of migrants, how many weapons were used in self-defense, and blurt out about the "oppressed Swiss spirit" a lot of mind is not needed. Personally, my opinion about all kinds of inhibition by the state institutions of Russia of the legal circulation of weapons is, first of all, distrust, or rather, even fear of the armed people by those in power ...
    10. 0
      23 January 2023 13: 18
      And what would you do in such a situation. shoot and there are students. and if you missed and hit them. or a student armed with fright put you or his fellow students.
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. +32
    20 January 2023 04: 50
    Yes, for no reason to allow people weapons))) they took away a hundred years not in order to distribute))) here, the Moldovans can be cold-blooded like Finns and finally don’t break the law))) the Balts can they feed the whole USSR and puffed for everyone being a showcase of the Soviet world and deep where to the people?)) and why sit a swarm of potatoes. there is still no money, so the criminal is not terrible, well, he won’t climb to a person who has an income of 22 thousand a month ((well, if let’s say, like in Kovdor or Sevastopol there, and at least in Kondopoga, it’s an ordinary everyday life and you don’t need any weapons ) the Russians have weapons, who have a tradition of having weapons at home. The Caucasian republics, for example, there, in general, folk craft, historically, it was in stuffing cows)))) and even if the train is robbed by the whole village, this is not a crime, because the people cannot commit crimes and who thinks to another, that Nazi, and if you work as a bartender or storekeeper in the ozone, or hunchback at a construction site, well, why such a weapon? shoots his own eggs
    1. +18
      20 January 2023 08: 21
      That's right, to ban everything. And also kitchen knives - suddenly they will cut off their own fingers, than they will draw ticks for our benefactors and intercessors in the ballots at the next elections. Everything is for the people, everything in the name of their good and well-being, we have all the laws.
      1. +15
        20 January 2023 11: 11
        Quote: not the one
        And also kitchen knives - suddenly they cut their own fingers

        Yes, what are the fingers. A kitchen knife, EMNIP, is one of the most common weapons for killing or inflicting grievous bodily harm.
        So our deputies are underperforming. They should take care of the order of handling, storage, transportation and use of kitchen knives. Well, there, purchase permits, training courses, a medical examination, sale only by permission with the presentation of a chef's certificate, inspections with checks on storage rules (only in a safe in the kitchen, chained to a safe with a chain), a knife box, etc.
        1. +6
          20 January 2023 14: 55
          Quote: Alexey RA
          So our deputies are underperforming. They should take care of the order of handling, storage, transportation and use of kitchen knives.

          It can be easier. If my memory serves me right, in Okinawa, after it was conquered by the samurai, a law was introduced - ONE knife per village chained to a pole in the center of the square. Needed - came, used, left. That's what I understand, tight control. Our deputies have someone to take an example from in history hi
          1. +11
            20 January 2023 16: 25
            Quote: Adrey
            It can be easier. If my memory serves me right, in Okinawa, after it was conquered by the samurai, a law was introduced - ONE knife per village chained to a pole in the center of the square. Needed - came, used, left.

            Can. But not necessary. For such a decision simplifies the control procedure and reduces the number of bureaucrats required for this. And this is unacceptable.
            Just imagine - how many new regular places can be knocked out under the control of kitchen knives. How many structures to create. How many mutually contradictory laws and rules to adopt - and how many fines and bribes to collect for their non-compliance. smile
            1. +1
              20 January 2023 20: 46
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Can. But it is not necessary.

              Great comment! Taking off my hat hi laughing good
    2. +2
      20 January 2023 13: 45
      And how many registered weapons do you have at home?
  6. +6
    20 January 2023 05: 00
    Why am I against legal short barrels
    Be bloody in the comments smile
    1. +6
      20 January 2023 05: 46
      Be bloody in the comments
      First time or what?
      1. +2
        20 January 2023 06: 00
        Yes, not for the first time .. The topic is, "good fellows walked around, well done!" (c) .. How many of them have already been, similar topics.
        1. +4
          20 January 2023 06: 10
          As Shpakovsky says, only clickbait and the density of the information flow are important.
          1. +2
            20 January 2023 06: 25
            As Shpakovsky says, only clickbait and the density of the information flow are important.
            laughing good
          2. 0
            20 January 2023 07: 53
            As Shpakovsky says, only clickbait and the density of the information flow are important.

            Holy words!
            good
          3. +7
            20 January 2023 10: 11
            Oh, yes, Shpakovsky often blurts out such things that at least take out all the saints. And all the flow of his information carries it like that, in my eyes he brought it to the Gauleiter.
        2. +6
          20 January 2023 08: 00
          "good fellows roamed, well done!"
          The most important thing is without a short barrel in your hands.)))
    2. +6
      20 January 2023 05: 48
      Quote: parusnik
      Why am I against legal short barrels
      Be bloody in the comments

      Anything to be. Especially if you think about the title of the article. The author is against the legal short-barrel. And the illegal is ready to welcome?
      1. +11
        20 January 2023 08: 25
        Quote: NDR-791
        And the illegal is ready to welcome?

        And the illegal doesn't care, whether they greet him or not ...
  7. +14
    20 January 2023 05: 11
    The author here hooked on karate. Maybe then he will remember what motivated the authorities to ban? It is the possibility of resistance. THIS IS KARATE, which an ARMED police officer had to resist. And there were not so many thugs in the sections. I speak as someone who has been doing it for several years. And from conversations with the then policemen, he understood the true essence of the ban. The authorities were afraid of the appearance of uncontrolled and self-sufficient groups of the population to the point of trembling in the knees. And the same with shorts. Better to ban. Our authorities always take the path of least resistance.
    1. Fat
      +4
      20 January 2023 09: 54
      hi
      Quote: Russian quilted jacket
      Better to ban. Our authorities always take the path of least resistance.

      Why only our authorities?
      Any bureaucratic fraternity tends to strive to obtain the most effective result with the minimum expenditure of effort and money ... request
      1. +4
        20 January 2023 11: 22
        Why only officials? Any. This is a completely rational approach. The only question is whether those whom they consider the object of control will meekly drive themselves into a stall (or into a slaughterhouse), or not. If it is easier and cheaper to agree, take into account the interests of a partner/opponent/employee/citizen, then they will do so, if this is not necessary, they will be bent, because someone who does not want / cannot defend their interests would simply be long, and does not deserve any rights .
    2. +4
      20 January 2023 13: 51
      though in the end a number of sections turned into organized crime groups. So there was some truth in this decision .. The question is different, why do you need CSR: Everyone writes about "but they will attack and now I will defend myself." Then the question is immediately, if you are now actively exposed attacks, then therefore you already have self-defense in your pocket? For example, a gas spray or a shocker? Or maybe an injury? how many smoothbore and rifled are framed? the same story - most of those who require it do not have it.
  8. +12
    20 January 2023 05: 21
    I understand that the issue of legalizing short barrels will periodically arise in the future.

    The question of the legalization of short barrels will arise until ALL CITIZENS OF RUSSIA receive equal rights to protection from violence, robbery and attack.
    * * *
    As for inadequate teenagers, their parents are the chicks of the EBN coup. It is they who instill in their children (if they appear) the laws of survival. and gopniks appear where there are no state law enforcement agencies, and the judicial system is not fair (where everything is decided by money).
    * * *
    In addition, I PERSONALLY believe that a person has every right to protect his health (the health of citizens) from dogs, because the state has left the issue of keeping these animals to chance.

    Such animal defenders should be left alone with the flocks ...
    And before there were trapping services.
    1. -2
      20 January 2023 09: 10
      Quote: yuriy55
      a person has every right to protect his health (health of citizens) from dogs, because the state has left the issue of keeping these animals to chance.

      The state went on about the animal rights activists and the media. In order to solve this problem by 99%, it is not at all necessary to arm the population without exception (especially since no one will give a child a trunk anyway), but it is enough to give a damn about the opinion and tantrums of these animal rights activists and return to the practice of trapping and destroying homeless animals and animals running around the cities without the supervision of the owners.
    2. for
      +4
      20 January 2023 10: 56
      Quote: yuriy55
      Such animal defenders should be left alone with the flocks ...

      Not zoodefenders, but officials organizing capture. If they were caught and released into the wild as required by law, these dogs would no longer be on the street or there would be only a few thanks to "conscientious owners"
      A clip is inserted into the ear of sterilized bitches, and she runs around pregnant.
    3. +2
      20 January 2023 13: 54
      did you try to use a gas canister against dogs? This is not to mention the fact that the use of weapons in a peaceful city, not on the battlefield, is a very difficult environment - you need to clearly be able to handle weapons so as not only to injure yourself by shooting dogs, but not to shoot someone then through the window or injuring a passing passerby .. By the way, the difference between the work of the police and the army is the task of the military to hit the target, and the policeman must look WHERE he shoots and take into account WHO and WHAT is on the line of fire and behind it.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. +2
          20 January 2023 18: 05
          I’ll reveal a terrible secret, but even 7 dogs really don’t want to sniff the air with pepper, and you, with your “knowledge”, chasing dogs, shoot passers-by
        2. The comment was deleted.
  9. +3
    20 January 2023 05: 33
    Any weapon is intended either for crime or to protect oneself dear. If you remember the past, then for the owner of a firearm it always ended in disaster. He could scare the attackers, but unexpectedly used it in his own home. To allow the carrying of firearms, laws are needed to implement them. Who will deal with this? Now the whole atmosphere is saturated with hatred. Some people have hatred for the Nazis. Others have a sense of deprivation. They hung symbols on us. About the "space empire", about the superiority of the spirit over reality. Whoever is weak in soul will be the first to shoot. The mess in the heads is not treated with weapons.
    1. +14
      20 January 2023 08: 14
      Now the whole atmosphere is saturated with hatred.
      You can achieve much more with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word.
  10. +4
    20 January 2023 05: 41
    Quote: Russian quilted jacket
    The author here hooked on karate.

    The author does not know the sayings of the 90s ... an old TT is better than judo and karate. smile
    The cemeteries of Russia are full of such karate-athletes ... fighters of the 90s.
  11. +6
    20 January 2023 05: 43
    Quote: Nikolay Malyugin
    Now the whole atmosphere is saturated with hatred.

    So it's not about weapons, but about devastation in the minds of people ... request
    And this problem will be more difficult.
    1. +17
      20 January 2023 08: 14
      - Why do you need a revolver?
      - To learn to trust people.
    2. +4
      20 January 2023 17: 09
      It's not a problem. This is the style of governing our country. Divide and Conquer policy.
  12. +15
    20 January 2023 05: 50
    The author writes nonsense, this is not a kindergarten, there are grandmothers on a bench at the entrance. Switzerland was especially pleased, with its examples and "statistics". Suppose that the presence of high-rise buildings increases the number of suicide pilots, and selling bread in stores is simply deadly, because all murderers, suicides, drivers, security forces and criminals eat bread. I look at the Baltic states, the Czech Republic, weapons are possible, the crime rate, in general, has not changed. There are fewer serious crimes. And at the expense of the police and the execution of detainees and suspects, violent and stupid run out quickly, the rest will think a hundred times whether to get the barrel in front of the security forces. A weapon is a tool that needs to be taught to use, you need to understand its seriousness and danger. Otherwise, grinders, chainsaws, crowbars and axes with kitchen knives should also be banned. And cars. Citizen with a weapon, this is strength, confidence, calmness for others, but, according to the author, he is dangerous. And a citizen with a weapon in the forest, is he a hunter, is he like an angel? Why is a law-abiding citizen deprived of the right to adequately protect himself, his relatives, his own property?
    1. +3
      20 January 2023 05: 58
      Quote: kot-begemot
      .And a citizen with a weapon in the forest, is he a hunter, is he like an angel?

      Yeah, I’m standing “on the number” with a carbine and I feel how the wings are growing, and the roe deer shied away from the halo wassat
      1. +10
        20 January 2023 10: 30
        Nimbus must be wrapped with camouflage tape!
        Do not give thanks
        1. +5
          20 January 2023 16: 48
          Well, I'm a hunter. Here's my avatar with a gun. I will say this - with a weapon in your hands you feel like a completely different person. There is some calmness and self-confidence. You have to visit remote places where not only a pack of wild dogs, but also a wolf with a wild boar can attack. And people always talk to me and everything is very polite when I have a weapon in my hands.
    2. +1
      20 January 2023 14: 01
      sorry, but do you already have a ready-made system? which with a guarantee will teach and the "violent" ones will end .. In the USA, as practice has shown, the violent ones do not end to this day and there is always a percentage of those who were extinguished during detention, because they twitched at the wrong time. And for hunters, there are regular crossbows, friendly fire or loss of weapons .. and we are talking about a hefty "scrap" gun, and not a compact pistol .. what can I say, our children regularly suffer from injuries .. Do you want to allow CSR? please, But after 10 years of owning a smoothbore and rifled and without comment .. I suspect that, apart from athletes, most of the bolts will eventually score in such a situation
      1. -1
        20 January 2023 15: 55
        Quote: Barberry25
        In the USA, as practice has shown, violent do not end to this day

        USA is a source of sodomy and depravity. They are brought up from childhood so that the Americans are the highest nation ...
        And the system is developed simply, you only need time for its full perception and assimilation.
        Life, where speculation and deception of one's neighbor under the guise of enterprise is at the head, gives rise to ghouls, for whom one's own "I" is more important than public morality and rules.
        1. +1
          20 January 2023 18: 09
          those. there is no system, but there is a wild desire to get a gun? and while you are in THEORY building up the work of the system, how many should die from the fact that pistols will be issued haphazardly? And yes, it’s very funny about the "us source ..." as if this explains that free access to weapons creates problems there that force you to open fire to kill on any suspicion. You first work out the system at least on a long barrel, and then offer to allow CSR ...
  13. -3
    20 January 2023 05: 56
    I agree with the author that there is no point in arming. This will bring more problems than good.
    [/ quote] Someday there will come a time when we can safely buy pistols or rifles in a store, but for this we must change. [quote]

    If such a time comes, there will be no need for weapons, as we will change.
    Well, if you still allow selling to sell, then it would not be bad to work out a way to identify weapons by a fired bullet. That is, when registering weapons in the database, the features of this barrel should be indicated. Then it will be possible to determine the owner by the pool.
    Such a measure will increase the responsibility of the owners, because they will have to explain the reason for the shooting.
    1. +7
      20 January 2023 06: 02
      Quote: Alexander Ivanovich
      it would not be bad to work out a way to identify weapons by a fired bullet.

      In fact, shooting is a standard procedure for any rifle. Even the police pistols have been shot and the shells and bullets are in the file cabinets. I’m not talking about hunting weapons at all - this is the first question in LRO by default.
      1. +1
        20 January 2023 13: 00
        Only when shooting with a lead scooter (it is now officially allowed for rifling) or a half-shell is this completely useless information. Information slipped through the Hansa that very few people were found on these tracks.
        1. +2
          20 January 2023 15: 16
          Quote from Arisaka
          Only when shooting with a lead scooter (it is now officially allowed for rifling) or a half-shell is this completely useless information.

          Disagree. I don’t know about lead (and I don’t see the point in such a pool either. It will come off the rifling), but the half-shell may well be identified by fragments, unlike the shell. She will take off and look for her fistulas, if not indoors. Well, shell casings (if not picked up) are also a thing for research.
    2. +14
      20 January 2023 08: 29
      I agree with the author that there is no point in arming.
      That's right, why do people feel protected. We live in the most beautiful country in the world, and all the other countries envy us! It’s allowed for law-abiding citizens to have weapons in everyone there, but why do we need it, we haven’t grown up to that. All sorts of Moldovans matured, but we are not. And there are clear reasons not to allow law-abiding citizens the possession of a short-barrel was never heard from opponents of permission in any discussion like this here. So, some kind of water.
      1. +10
        20 January 2023 12: 31
        Much has been written. Very! .. in my opinion, the main thing is lost !! We need a law on privacy and property, and a strong adjustment of the law from self-defense. If someone picked up something on my wife or daughter .. you can shoot. If someone entered my territory .. you can shoot .. well, etc. and then it will be unnecessary to refer that he "did not know" .. this will even reduce domestic crimes at times. Well, at school ... Just smack))))) it doesn’t hurt - but it’s offensive !!))))
        1. +7
          20 January 2023 12: 31
          It is especially necessary to allow shooting at some .. who are trying to enter without a warrant))
        2. +6
          20 January 2023 14: 10
          Quote: Terator
          Well, at school ... Just smack))))) it doesn’t hurt - but it’s offensive !!))))

          Oh ho ho, how can you?
          They were even exempted from cleaning the classrooms, because "it is impossible to injure the tender child's psyche with a floor rag, a mop and a bucket" ...
      2. +9
        20 January 2023 14: 07
        Quote: not the one
        And I haven’t heard any clear reasons not to allow law-abiding citizens to own a short barrel

        And do not hear, for they are not.
      3. +1
        24 January 2023 05: 03
        Look at the opinion of a person who knows what he is talking about:


        Put everything on the shelves!
    3. +3
      20 January 2023 15: 57
      Quote: Alexander Ivanovich
      I agree with the author that there is no point in arming. This will bring more problems than good.

      Do you know that some officials thought that you can eat pasta? Only they did not say anything about harm and benefit ...
  14. +2
    20 January 2023 06: 02
    Quote: Alexander Ivanovich
    If such a time comes, there will be no need for weapons, as we will change.

    what Seriously.
    For thousands of years of its existence, man has not changed for the better ... request there will be no change for the next 1000 years.
    1. +2
      20 January 2023 06: 14
      So after all and I about this! We are not in danger of change...
      1. 0
        20 January 2023 06: 33
        Quote: Alexander Ivanovich
        So after all and I about this! We are not in danger of change...

        You're giving me such a heart attack smile... how can a crucian carp escape from a pike? request
        1. +4
          20 January 2023 06: 58
          According to prohibitions, a person should feel weak and not have his own dignity and opinion. hi
          1. -7
            20 January 2023 07: 11
            smile
            The main thing when you get to the site is not to relax ...
            1. +8
              20 January 2023 11: 28
              Quote: Lech from Android.
              smile
              The main thing when you get to the site is not to relax ...

              I'm surprised that you believe in the words of which F.E. never spoke.
              Yes, Svanidzi, posners, etc. of all stripes and ranks did a good job on you.
              1. +1
                20 January 2023 14: 27
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                Yes, Svanidzi, posners, etc. of all stripes and ranks did a good job on you.

                smile I can't stand them.
                You see how easy it is to make a mistake in a person.
                With this poster, I wanted to say that anyone can go to jail in the most unexpected way. request
                Probably a bad example.
                1. +2
                  20 January 2023 14: 54
                  Quote: Lech from Android.

                  I can't stand them.

                  In general, I thought so based on your comments on VO, which is why the reference to the alleged F.E. surprised me so much.
                  Quote: Lech from Android.

                  With this poster, I wanted to say that anyone can go to jail in the most unexpected way.

                  Whoever argues, I won’t, and everything would be fine if it weren’t for the annoying reference to F.E.
              2. +4
                20 January 2023 15: 26
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                Yes, Svanidzi, posners, etc. of all stripes and ranks did a good job on you.

                They can not compare with our state laughing.
                Today I went into the frames for the sake of interest to find out how it is with my seniority pension. Was not that surprised, but had to smile sadly.
                “Yes, from April you will work out the length of service and have the right to a pension according to the length of service. But they will pay you only after 5 years from 2028. And you cannot not work, you will not be paid a pension anyway. You can only not work in your specialty if you do not want, but the grounds for the 28th year will be (maybe).
                Something like this request
          2. +16
            20 January 2023 10: 42
            The most common horror story from our authorities is something like this: everyone will immediately buy guns and start randomly shooting at each other, and as for other countries, neither the Moldovans nor the Balts have killed each other, and they are allowed to sell weapons .. We have not matured, they say .Of course, this is far-fetched nonsense. First, it's just insulting to the people. Secondly, many people have kitchen knives and axes, but people still live in Russia. And if the population of the country decreases, then for completely different reasons.
            1. +2
              20 January 2023 16: 58
              I agree, they hold us completely for a herd of inadequate people, since such explanations are given out - they say we ourselves will shoot each other.
            2. 0
              24 January 2023 05: 12


              Just look. I put everything on the shelves, just watch everything, there are only 7 minutes.
  15. +4
    20 January 2023 06: 08
    Quote: Alexander Ivanovich
    it would be nice to work out a way to identify weapons by a fired bullet

    That's right! Respect...
  16. +4
    20 January 2023 06: 20
    What are you going to the taiga with, son? With a new carbine, grandfather. Well, that's it .... The bear had a knife, a gun, now there will also be a carbine .... An incident several years ago, a PPS patrol used a weapon at a passerby who was moving down the street with an exact pneumatic copy of the AK-74. Weapons for the population is a very difficult question .... Probably a weapon for an adequate population that will not be emotionally measured by pussies, sorry with pistols, but will use them when 100% there is a need, wild rabid animals, or a hostile gadget ....
    1. 0
      20 January 2023 17: 01
      From your comment it turns out that adequate people live in the USA, but do we have crazy psychos?
  17. +14
    20 January 2023 06: 27
    For some reason, in Israel they are not afraid to keep military weapons at home. And there, a quarter of our former people .. It is immediately clear that the author lives in some kind of parallel world.
    1. +13
      20 January 2023 07: 43
      In the United States, the right to own a gun is enshrined in the constitution. Citizens have the right to form a militia if the situation gets out of control of the government, and the governor of the state, under certain conditions, can lead it.
  18. +1
    20 January 2023 06: 28
    Quote: Alexander Ivanovich
    Agree, no one with a weapon will attack an armed policeman or, say, a collector, in order to take away his phone or bag.

    I don’t agree ... they attacked, attacked and will attack collectors at an opportunity.
    This has happened more than once in the history of collection.
    Now cashless transactions are developed ... they began to attack less ... but private traders with large amounts of cash are gutted mercilessly ... this regularly flies in criminal reports. smile
    1. +10
      20 January 2023 11: 20
      When you have a pistol, machine gun, double-barreled shotgun, bought officially, i.e. shot in a cartridge case, YOU personally will lose the desire to use it otherwise, as for its intended purpose, in a shooting range, shooting range, range, etc. And to rob someone is a tower ... If there is no way with the psyche, then what kind of weapon are we talking about?
      1. 0
        24 January 2023 05: 24
        When you have a pistol, machine gun, double-barreled shotgun, bought officially, i.e. shot in a cartridge case, YOU personally will lose the desire to use it otherwise, as for its intended purpose, in a shooting range, shooting range, range, etc. And to rob someone is a tower ... If there is no way with the psyche, then what kind of weapon are we talking about?


        Yeah???? But the statistics say the opposite: a bunch of executions from legal weapons. Moreover, only cases with fatal outcomes are well known, but how many cases are there when weapons are simply used, but without fatal outcomes?

        2020 year
        March 12th. The city of Svobodny, Amur Region. A high school student brought an airgun to a local school and opened fire, as a result of which two students in grades 6 and 8 were injured.
        November 27th. The capital of Kabardino-Balkaria, the city of Nalchik. Lyceum №2. There was a conflict between the relatives of the eighth-grader and the teacher of the educational institution, which turned into a brawl. The teacher left the building and returned with a traumatic gun.
        As a result of two shots fired into the air, the shooter himself and one of his opponents were injured. At the same time, only the teacher got to the hospital, who had received numerous injuries even before the shooting began.
        2019 year
        Krasnoyarsk Territory, the village of Abalakovo. On January 25, one of the students of the local school fired from a hunting rifle in the courtyard of the educational institution. According to law enforcement officers, the child did this after a quarrel with other guys.
        The attacker fired into the air and no one was hurt.
        On April 12, in Engels near Saratov, a 13-year-old schoolboy fired a pneumatic shot at a high school student and hit the girl in the jaw. The victim required medical attention, but only soft tissues were affected.
        In October of the same year, a tragedy was avoided in one of the Moscow schools only thanks to the correct actions of the teacher, who isolated an eighth-grader who fired from a traumatic weapon right in the school building. The teacher called the police, as it turned out later, the air gun belonged to the father of the unlucky shooter.
        2018 year
        In March 2018, in the Urals, a 13-year-old student of the Shadrin school No. 15 fired several shots from an airgun that her cousin brought to school. There were no casualties, but seven classmates of the shooting girl were still injured in the form of bruises and abrasions.
        None of them needed hospitalization, so the educational institution continued to work as usual.
        2017 year
        This year turned out to be especially rich in school emergencies. The first happened on February 11 in the Nizhnekamsk school (Tatarstan), when a 14-year-old boy shot a classmate in the eye right during the lesson. Despite the efforts of doctors, five days after the incident, the injured child died.
        The pistol was brought to school by another boy, who loaded the weapon and handed it over to his friend, but did not say that it was loaded.
        On May 12, shots rang out in the courtyard of the Usinsk school No. 2 (Komi Republic). One of the students opened fire with an air pistol at two teenagers. As a result, a 17-year-old girl was injured.
        A case was opened against the teenager under an article with the wording "Hooliganism" and sentenced to 1,5 years in prison, and the school principal was reprimanded.

        .... Five months later, a high-profile state of emergency occurred in the Ivanteevskaya school No. 1 (Moscow region). On September 5, a ninth-grader came to school with a whole arsenal: he blew up explosive packages in an educational institution, shot at a teacher with an air pistol and hit her with an axe. Fleeing, several schoolchildren jumped out of the window and received injuries of varying severity. Everyone survived, including the teacher.
        The teenager was charged with several criminal cases. He turned out to be fully sane and received a sentence of 7 years and 3 months in an educational colony.


        Of course, now mainly pneumatics and injuries appear, but after the legalization of the COPs, they will already be, because even now the law on weapons and by-laws require that weapon stored in such a way that third parties cannot access it. Any! And as you can see from the sample, children easily get access to arms. Whatever it is, it WEAPONS.
        1. 0
          1 July 2023 14: 12
          You don’t understand what you are talking about ... Trauma and air vents were spoiled by accessibility and irresponsibility .. Especially for the people to let off steam ... I assure you, NOBODY will use their registered weapons to slap a neighbor ...
  19. +13
    20 January 2023 06: 34
    A sketch in the spirit of the yellow press.
    On the street a gun can help from street crime, and for criminals this is a business, robbery is one alignment, attempted murder is completely different. They are not kamikazes to hang on themselves for an additional year of imprisonment.
  20. +12
    20 January 2023 06: 35
    In order for a person to be able to obtain the right to purchase and store (note - store, but not concealed carry), it is necessary to undergo a medical, including psychological, examination.

    My son needed to renew the ROC, and accordingly pass a medical examination. In addition to the fact that the process itself has risen in price, 15 tr, it was stretched out in time: the narcologist conjures with analyzes for a week, the psychiatrist slowly ponders whether to give or not to give, etc. Given that he works in another city, he decided to sell ruzhzho. In the commission shop they say "What are you talking about! We are inundated with your guns, everyone refuses, there are no buyers." Well, we have achieved what we wanted, now we will live? There are no decent words to express my attitude to this situation.
  21. -4
    20 January 2023 06: 38
    As a person who has been carrying PM and APS for 14 years on a permanent basis, I can say that I am against it. Just ask yourself the question - can you get a barrel quickly and apply it, especially in winter? Yes, in the summer too. We are not allowed to carry weapons openly.
    1. +1
      20 January 2023 06: 59
      I constantly train at home, I bought myself a RAM, though I hardly carry the barrel, I took it a couple of times on long trips
      1. -7
        20 January 2023 07: 41
        I constantly train at home, I bought myself a RAM,


        In the event of a conflict, if you climb behind the barrel, then with a fright I will hit in the neck, in the Adam's apple, so that for sure, otherwise it would just be in the liver ... just kidding
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. +13
          20 January 2023 09: 54
          I don’t understand why you decided that you would stand 1-2m from me? For some reason, you do not consider cases when several people come to meet you with clearly not good intentions. Or let's say thieves got into my garden. Today I can only say "good evening" to them. Well, or immortal: "Who are you, I didn't call you, go to ....". Or do you offer Bruce Lee style to them all
          "out of fright, I'll hit in the neck, in the Adam's apple, so that for sure, otherwise it would just be in the liver"
          . Should my wife also go and charge them in the liver? And the father-in-law is 70 years old? A gunshot will give them at least some chance. Do not confuse a drunken fight with repelling an attack. Very often you will have time, at least 10-15 seconds.
          1. -7
            20 January 2023 11: 26
            For some reason, you do not consider cases when several people come to meet you with clearly not good intentions.

            When you have a microscope in your hands, everything around looks like nails.
            And the herds of downtrodden offenders will begin to see the threat, attack and shoot from here.
            At the same time, it is possible that the conflict (if it happens at all, and not imagined) will be provoked by themselves, by nature bestial (for example, screaming in the yard at night), or intentionally.

            Or let's say thieves got into my garden.

            Yes Yes Yes.
            Let's kill for 3 carrots...
            That's why you can't give weapons to citizens until people like you are gone.

            And in general, this is more and more the fantasy of an adult infantile on the subject of "I want a new toy."
            1. +11
              20 January 2023 12: 39
              When you have a microscope in your hands, everything around looks like nails.
              And the herds of downtrodden offenders will begin to see the threat, attack and shoot from here.

              And what is now preventing herds of offended people from taking an ax and going to cut? Maybe something that there is a sickly opportunity to get in return? This is when you are ONE with a trunk, and there is a crowd of helpless "sheep" around, then you are GOD. And when anyone, even theoretically, can shoot back, then everything is not so rosy. Again, no one suggests handing out trunks like caramels to everyone. Here, of course, they will instantly begin to yell that everything is bought and sold. But with such an approach, what for do we need the police and others like them? If ALL of them are corrupt, then what is the use of them? It’s like at the beginning of the XNUMXs they suggested that money not be stored in the stabilization fund, but put into the economy, then the supreme one answered: “it’s impossible, they will be plundered.” By the way, do you remember where this money ended up going? And now there is no money or factories. Brilliant!!.
              At the same time, it is possible that the conflict (if it happens at all, and not imagined) will be provoked by themselves, by nature bestial (for example, screaming in the yard at night), or intentionally

              Yeah. To provoke a conflict knowing that the opponent is armed.
              Yes Yes Yes.
              Let's kill for 3 carrots...
              That's why you can't give weapons to citizens until people like you are gone.

              Of course of course. And can I have a joke at your house? Well, you're not greedy :) I promise that I won't take much. So little things. And in your car will rummage? Well, think I'll take a jack there or a spare wheel. Aren't you sorry? And then the thief begins to judge in prison. For what? That is why it is impossible to give the police powers, otherwise they are inadequate to jail the whole country. After all, everyone knows that a bucket of potatoes is immediately given for LIFE. Or not?
              Has it ever occurred to you that you don't have to kill right away? During the service, did you immediately sneer right away? Or is there a warning-shot in the air? And having received a weapon, they immediately went to kick everyone and provoke conflicts?
              .
    2. +3
      20 January 2023 13: 00
      Workout every day. And don't defend bandadites and assassins.
  22. +16
    20 January 2023 06: 48
    There are still many rapes in the country. Well, cut off your penis, author. And he is not authorized to decide for others.
  23. Owl
    +6
    20 January 2023 06: 50
    Now the country will receive so many illegal weapons and so many "citizens who have known the taste of blood" that the legalization of PM-type pistols for self-defense will be simply necessary ...
    1. +4
      20 January 2023 11: 03
      This, unfortunately, is inevitable, and this is a matter for the next six months or a year. And then the massively returned Wagner prisoners (and not only them) will begin to fight for the Russian world in Russia itself. Enemies will be those who were not lucky enough to have an apartment they liked, a car, a telephone, etc. well, and if a beautiful woman refused, she is an obvious agent of the SBU, or at least a shameful liberda.
      As a result, law-abiding citizens will be forced to give a damn about their law-abiding nature (the instinct of self-preservation is stronger), and buy illegal guns from the same NMD veterans. So it will be much better and safer for the state to lead what it still cannot prevent. Legal barrels, at least, will be registered in the bullet case, and any shot from it will have, one might say, the signature of the owner.
  24. -4
    20 January 2023 06: 50
    Personally, I am against short barrels, I myself own a smooth Saiga, a rifled TR3 and an IZH-79 injury, served in the army, with a machine gun every day, served in the Police / Police for 21 years, with a pistol almost every day and I can say that possession of weapons permanently imposes on an imprint of a person, he himself had a case when he retired, got a job at a civilian enterprise, they started fooling around as a joke, the dude swung at me, and my right hand did not voluntarily reach for a pistol, which is not there, this is what I mean , where is the guarantee that some kind of botanist who bought a barrel for himself will not later want to assert himself with the help of it?
    1. -2
      20 January 2023 07: 43
      possession of weapons permanently leaves an imprint on a person

      There is a good film "Makarov" with Makovetsky

      The talented poet Makarov lacks only one thing in life - a sense of security. On occasion, he buys a Makarov pistol. Cold metal gradually becomes the most important part of the hero, displacing everything else from life.
      1. -6
        20 January 2023 08: 41
        what For some people, a gun is a symbol of power over other people ... like if I have a gun, then the one who does not have one is lower in status. request
        1. +9
          20 January 2023 10: 57
          Well, it means that everyone, at least not convicted, mentally healthy, should have the right to a short barrel, which is confirmed by a psychiatric examination (and not its imitation, as we have now). Then the problem you indicated will automatically disappear. But those who still have the right to arms are least of all interested in this decision - for them it is really a symbol of power, and which they do not want to cede to anyone (as well as the opportunity to abuse this power).
        2. +1
          20 January 2023 15: 36
          Quote: Lech from Android.
          like if I have a gun, then the one who does not have one is lower in status.

          That is if you know that there is no gun. What if others have a gun?
    2. +11
      20 January 2023 10: 02
      And where is the guarantee that a police officer who wants to assert himself will not start naughty at citizens? Moreover, there have already been cases. Let's take their trunks away. and the soldiers too.
      Maybe you don’t need to consider your compatriots as a herd of idiots.? If you personally reach for the trunk during a comic brawl, then this is your professional deformation.
      1. -1
        20 January 2023 19: 28
        cases of the use of weapons by employees are not the right and left of the unit, the most resonant Serdyukov, and from the same injuries the deer fire at each other every day, and the fact that the hand did not arbitrarily reach for the barrel is at the level of instincts, now it has already passed, 6 years retired )
    3. +2
      20 January 2023 11: 47
      What does self-affirmation mean in your example?
      You gave an example that they swung at you, that is, as if an attack.
      Consequently, the "nerd" wants to "assert himself" by using a weapon during an attack?
      1. -4
        20 January 2023 19: 27
        here I meant professional deformation, when you walk with a weapon every day, you get used to it, respectively, you behave with it as it should be and you are well aware of how to use it and how not to use it, and a person who has completed short courses will start to naughty without thinking about the consequences
        1. +2
          21 January 2023 01: 18
          and a person who has completed short courses will begin to naughty without thinking about the consequences

          So, according to your logic, smooth barrels and injuries should be banned, otherwise their happy owners will start firing to the right - to the left as soon as they leave the weapons store!

          If this is not happening now, then your proposal is just empty speculation ...
  25. +1
    20 January 2023 06: 58
    Quote: HaByxoDaBHocep
    where is the guarantee that some botanist who bought a barrel for himself will not want to assert himself later with it?

    No one will give you such a guarantee ... just as there is no guarantee that a soldier who has received a machine gun in his hands, angry, will not start shooting at his colleagues. request
    Anyone can be that shooter.
    1. +2
      20 January 2023 07: 06
      I agree, people are all different and you can’t guess what’s in a person’s head
    2. 0
      20 January 2023 07: 20
      as well as no guarantees that a soldier who has received a machine gun in his hands, angry, will not start shooting at his colleagues

      Unlike us, American recruits, before they sign a contract and shoot their 6500 rounds of ammunition at the KMB, undergo a two-week psychiatric examination in a hospital, and not like ours, a question from a psychiatrist ... what is the difference between a pole and a tree .... and you fit
    3. +1
      21 January 2023 01: 29
      Anyone can be such a shooter.


      Remember the recent incident at the training center when at the training ground a "guest worker" from Central Asia began firing machine guns at mobilized guys and only an officer with a weapon was able to neutralize "this mad shooter ....
      And if all the mobilized had had weapons, you see, there would have been fewer victims or not at all, because it’s one thing to shoot an unarmed crowd, and another to immediately get a burst of AK-74 in response ...
  26. -7
    20 January 2023 07: 17
    What primitive thoughts in the comments. Even in the US, concealed carrying of weapons requires a special permit. Keep it at home or in the glove compartment of the car, but you can’t carry it in your pocket with you. You can carry at least an AK on your shoulder, but you can’t carry a pistol discreetly. Moreover, all these machine guns, machine guns do not have an automatic fire mode, and when you watch YouTube videos of Americans firing in bursts, these people have special permission, and transferring automatic weapons into the wrong hands is a criminal offense.
  27. 9PA
    +9
    20 January 2023 07: 27
    With pleasure I would buy myself an FN 5-7, Mauser Hsc, Walter p38, Colt Python, and even a Nagant. By the way, Nagant can be put into circulation
    1. 0
      21 January 2023 03: 12
      Everyone had it. What do you think they were doing at the shooting range?
      Another confirmation of the thesis that unprepared people could not or did not have time to use weapons.
      True, in that situation they most likely did not have such an opportunity in principle
  28. +8
    20 January 2023 07: 39
    In order for everyone to be polite, citizens should be required to carry long bladed weapons. And firearms are banned.
  29. +9
    20 January 2023 07: 40
    On the use of legal CC in general is beyond good and evil. In fact, the owners of rifled weapons rarely use them to commit crimes, not because they are angels, etc., but because in most countries of the world, weapons are fired for bullet casings, to kill from this is to sign a crime.
    It is a pity that this kind of "analytics" is posted on such a popular site.
    1. +2
      20 January 2023 13: 37
      It is enough to shoot with a lead bullet, as is the case with the .22LR or half-shell. The sleeve will only help if the FMJ is stuck somewhere in the body.
      Moreover, can you give an example where else, besides the Russian Federation or exUSSR, do they shoot weapons and / or insert a pin into the bore? I couldn't google.
      1. +3
        20 January 2023 15: 25
        The sleeve will only help if the FMJ is stuck somewhere in the body.

        There are many nuances, as far as I understand, it is difficult to simply track a random bullet in the database, but if there is a circle of suspects, then you can check the weapon with the owners, and there are studies that even allow you to track a smoothbore.
        I couldn't google.

        https://hyperprapor.livejournal.com/687363.html
        But there is a nuance here - the owners of legal firearms are stupidly afraid to use weapons when committing a crime, so the percentage of legal barrels in crime is vanishingly low, and in the USA there are just a lot of unshot barrels.
  30. +17
    20 January 2023 07: 49
    Many letters about everything are missing. And there isn't one. Now the criminal has a trunk. The victim is guaranteed not. Of the 100 planned crimes, the criminal will commit 100. And how much will he decide to commit if the chance of an oncoming barrel is 50/50?
  31. -8
    20 January 2023 08: 19
    I subscribe to every word of the author of the article.
    From the following:
    Would you like to have a combat short barrel? almost yes.
    Do I need it for self-defense? NO.
    1. Do you need to change the laws and interpretation for self-defense? YES. But. As Razvedos said, our society is not law-abiding (example: all sorts of analyzes, references ..) ...
    2. ""it is necessary to undergo a medical, including psychological, examination.""
    A) And who will conduct it and interpret it properly? Doctor (F). who crosses the road herself as she pleases, because it’s so convenient and it doesn’t matter with a child or not ...
    B) ""A weapon is, first of all, masculine strength and masculine confidence"" This is immediately a disqualification on the path to a license !!!!
    PS sort of like in Germany, sports shooters with pistols can move from home to shooting range with a case with a code, in principle, a cool idea. In our case, when used in a non-shooting gallery or at home, already an article ...
    1. +2
      20 January 2023 08: 26
      PS
      1. I already have a short barrel, but pneumatics. I've had enough. As soon as the need for sniffing gunpowder arises, I go to the shooting gallery ...
      2. A pistol, like a shotgun, like a carbine, is really a crap. Since I am not a hunter, but having bought a carbine and start shooting at cans in the hunting grounds, there will be problems if I get caught. But what to do if there are no open shooting galleries for these tasks or the price of rent is horsey ??
      And to drive away from 100500 km from a residential area in a field, and if they notice you, it will also be illegal ..
      2.1 With pistols I think + - the same thing.
      1. +1
        20 January 2023 19: 23
        I am not a hunter either, since the year before last there have been changes to the law on hunting, you can shoot weapons in hunting grounds, so I buy the cheapest ticket for a hare and shoot as much as I like without being afraid of anyone
        1. 0
          4 December 2023 11: 15
          Well, you understand, if suddenly the inspector does not have enough sticks for statistics to receive a bonus, then he may look at your shooting differently and get to the bottom of something, perhaps you will be right, write a complaint, it will be approved in your favor, but it will all happen later...
    2. +4
      20 January 2023 10: 51
      Do I need it for self-defense? NO.

      Answer this question for yourself again in 5-6 months, when the Wagnerites begin to return en masse from the NWO.
      1. +2
        20 January 2023 12: 20
        and the Wagnerites will immediately become bandits?
        1. 0
          20 January 2023 12: 50
          How can those whom they recruited in the zones, and who never ceased to be bandits, and even gained combat experience, become bandits?
          Yesterday I read an article about a deceased fighter of the Wagner PMC: a citizen has been in prison since 2017, having received more than 20 years for the murder of a woman and her father. He killed for 200 thousand, commissioned by a gang of black realtors who liked their apartment. So who do you think he is? And what would you do after demobilization from the PMC, if you lived to see it?
          1. +1
            21 January 2023 03: 17
            For bandits, combat experience is useless. Except in the Sinaloa cartel
      2. +3
        20 January 2023 13: 15
        They will go to African countries en masse.
        1. +3
          20 January 2023 17: 21
          And why should they? And who told you this? Maybe they won't?
    3. AB
      +2
      20 January 2023 13: 20
      I support everything except signing under the words of the author of the article)

      I am interested in the short barrel purely from the point of view: I WANT! Well, sometimes shoot from it at a shooting range or at banks.
      I myself also doubt that a short barrel will greatly help me in the event, nedaiboh !, of an attack on my carcass. And there will be only one reason for its low efficiency: I) In order to be able to stand up for yourself in stressful situations with weapons, you need to have remarkable stress resistance so as not to start firing in all directions. I, for one, am no different. Checked. Unfortunately. I have been attacked more than once. Each time, for one reason or another, to no avail. Sometimes I had a knife with me, but the good thing was that the not-so-hot head understood that you couldn’t touch the knife. I'll do things or the attacker is unconscious and you can't scare him with a knife. But it's me.
      And if you conduct a normal examination and training of adequate people ... It sounds like a utopia!)
      ... then it is quite possible to trust people with such weapons.
    4. +2
      22 January 2023 14: 44
      The legal practice of the same States suggests that there are fewer crimes in those states where weapons are legalized, or let's say: it's easy to buy and carry it. Our citizens are the same people as the Americans. There will be no problems. If someone does not need a gun, he may not BUY. BUT IT IS NOT FORBIDDEN TO BUY EVERYONE JUST BECAUSE YOU PERSONALLY CONSIDER OUR SYSTEM CORRUPT.
      1. 0
        4 December 2023 11: 24
        1. For starters, maybe we can copy the legal part from the states in the Russian Federation?)
        2. Not all states allow a pistol, and where it is allowed, it is also divided into concealed and uncovered carry.
        3. Somewhere even a machine gun is allowed....
        PS The states are not a single state, but a set of states with their own laws... This is just for the record. And there is anarchy there too, and they can send a president....
  32. +7
    20 January 2023 08: 34
    Quote: A. Staver
    There are no weapons for self-defense. It all depends on who is using it and for what.

    Don't you think the first sentence somehow contradicts the second?

    In essence the question.

    Power on violence should belong to the state and no one else. If the state does not ensure the protection of citizens, then the citizens have a question about self-defense. In such a case, they cannot be denied this right. Otherwise, it will look like the government has taken the side of crime. On the one hand, she does nothing herself, and on the other hand, she does not allow people to do anything ..

    In general, the problem is not in what to have or not to have, but in the ability of the authorities to ensure the legitimate interests of the majority.
  33. +7
    20 January 2023 08: 38
    "It is Switzerland in terms of the level of depression of the population that ranks second (after Norway) in Europe."
    I wonder if they are aware of this? It remains only to sympathize with them
    kg\am
    1. 0
      21 January 2023 03: 23
      Here is what the Swiss themselves write:

      In 2017, a total of 38 thousand permits for the acquisition and possession of small arms and light weapons were issued in Switzerland.
      In 2012, this figure was only at the level of 25 thousand, that is, there is an increase, and in all cantons, although the situation may look different in different subjects of the federation.
      In Zurich, for example, the growth in the number of permits issued over the past 5 years has amounted to 20%, in Bern - 35%, and in the canton of Basel-City - in general, all 85%....
      Why is there such a noticeable increase in the number of permits issued? According to experts, legislation does not play a role here, rather, The reason for this trend is the growing feeling of anxiety in the population.
      https://www.swissinfo.ch/rus/society/человек-с-ружьём_в-швейцарии-слишком-просто-получить-оружие-/44594312

      So they have certain problems. How else to explain the organization of bomb shelters under almost every private house
  34. 0
    20 January 2023 08: 38
    The topic of legalizing the short barrel again surfaced on the network.
    Social networks, not the State Duma ... As it surfaced, it will sink to the bottom ..
  35. -3
    20 January 2023 08: 44
    Quote from Kuziming
    In order for everyone to be polite, citizens should be required to carry long bladed weapons. And firearms are banned.

    No, sledgehammers are in fashion now drinks
  36. +16
    20 January 2023 08: 45
    Another article in the spirit: "you can't give them anything, and they will break the thing and cut their hands."
    It is Switzerland that, in terms of the level of depression of the population, ranks second (after Norway) in Europe.

    It's strange, but in Norway there are no such liberties with weapons, and she comes first. Maybe it's something else?

    There will come a time when we can safely buy pistols or rifles in the store, but for this we must change. To do this, laws must change. To do this, society itself must change.

    But until then, we won't give you anything. It's like learning to drive without a car. If you get a license, then you can approach the transport, but we won’t give you a license because you don’t know how to drive. For society to change, something needs to change. Instead of sitting and waiting until it evolves into a higher mind. And to begin with, to clearly state in the laws the right to self-defense and its boundaries. So that I could throw any pike perch out of my house. or fuck anyone who climbs to me or my family, and not convulsively think. What is "more profitable" for me - to give everything myself or to serve 5 years while trying to defend myself.
    This reminds me of the fabrications of my commanders in the army. "And let's forbid the soldier to keep the blades in the nightstands and pockets." And we will also take away their knives even in a canteen outfit and let them peel potatoes with SPOONS!! I am not kidding. Real example. And then we are surprised and mumble something about the quality of the army. Can deal with "hazing" and restore order in the unit? No, it needs to work. It's better to ban everything. One fool hung himself on the straps of the OZK. What should be done? Correctly issue an order - cut off all the straps. These are REAL examples. When the news was told that one schoolboy died during the NVP lesson due to a gas mask, we all waited. Maybe they will be taken away .. But somehow the command missed this case. And this is in the army. Where ALL were selected. where CONSTANT monitoring of each other. The stump is clear that with such an approach, responsible people, even in a nightmare, cannot imagine such an abomination as the right to own and use weapons by citizens.
    1. Fat
      +3
      20 January 2023 10: 27
      Quote: Single-n
      It's strange, but in Norway there are no such liberties with weapons, and she comes first.

      hi
      There is one very interesting place on the world map - Norwegian Longyearbyen. This northernmost city in the world is the largest settlement in Svalbard and the administrative center of a harsh archipelago. Everything northern is located on its territory - an airport, an international university, a museum, a library, and even a special Doomsday Vault. Very strange laws apply here: some it is forbidden to walk without weapons, others do - to die on its territory ...
      1. +2
        20 January 2023 11: 23
        Tolstoy (Andrei Borisovich Pestrikov) And you can only leave the city for going out into the countryside with a weapon of not weak caliber and power, you won’t go out with small things - this is the law laughing
      2. +6
        20 January 2023 12: 19
        I confirm. The bears defeated. But to walk only with an injury or a rocket launcher. On the territory of Barentsburg or the Pyramid, even a knife more than 10 cm is cold steel
      3. +1
        21 January 2023 03: 29
        there, if you walk without a weapon, the polar bear will immediately devour you. And so shoot and the people will at least know where to look for the gnawed bones
  37. +10
    20 January 2023 08: 56
    A person who legally owns a pistol is better prepared for combat than one who does not have this pistol! I wonder why?


    Because a person has completed a course of theoretical and practical training in the possession of self-defense weapons before obtaining permission to purchase.
    It is rare that someone will buy a pistol for 70-100 thousand rubles and will blow off dust particles from it, there will be such, but they are harmless "collectors".
    A normal owner who plans to constantly carry a pistol with him will regularly go to the shooting range, to the shooting range to maintain or improve his practical skills with weapons.
    Using the data on the number of smoothbore and traumatic weapons as an example, I am convinced that the majority of current owners of injuries and a small part of smoothbore gunners will become owners of pistols.
    Ten million units of "short-barrels" is the limit of the Russian market.
    A gun will never hit every house and everyone who wants it ...
  38. +15
    20 January 2023 09: 07
    The author of the article cites all the same flawed arguments that the Russian is flawed, shoots each other and thus considers Us Russians unterminers, it is obvious that he writes on the instructions of the clique that wants to betray our Fatherland Russia and surrender to the West, but simply speaking, he denies the right of a LAW-OBIDING CITIZEN to protect his CHILDREN, WIFE, MOTHER, HOMELAND; He is a traitor!!!
    1. +8
      20 January 2023 10: 45
      And to assume that a citizen who has never been allowed to defend his life, his loved ones, his property by all means, suddenly turns out to be able to defend the interests of his country, simply because he was dressed in a uniform, and for the first time in his life he was given a weapon in his hands, who have been frightened all their lives before - just stupid and naive.
      1. +1
        21 January 2023 03: 39
        In September 2021, the Tver Regional Court sentenced 31-year-old Alexander Zobenkov, a resident of the Kalininsky District, who was accused of a triple murder. As TVTVER.ru previously reported, the man became the central character in the tragedy that occurred in the village of Mikhailovskoye in May last year.

        The man stabbed the son of his neighbor and two of his acquaintances who came to him to sort things out. Uninvited guests behaved aggressively and, according to the wife of the accused, were the first to start a brawl.
        The Tverskoy court acquitted Zobenkov, not seeing the corpus delicti in his actions.
        Russia's Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, confirming that the young man acted in self-defense.
        1. +1
          22 January 2023 21: 43
          I wonder what the sentence would be if it weren't for the fact that Zobenkova's sister is a police officer?
    2. -2
      20 January 2023 11: 03
      You have some strange conclusion, very superficially related to the article .. Why do you need to carry a gun in the subway, for example?
  39. +12
    20 January 2023 09: 10
    The authorities are afraid of their people without weapons. How many laws have been adopted so that a citizen cannot buy weapons. A ban on short barrels is a protection of officials from the wrath of people.
    1. +1
      20 January 2023 10: 41
      The ban on short barrels is the protection of officials from the anger of people. ,,
      Let's say: you have a gun, will you go with it to an official for a showdown?
      1. +1
        20 January 2023 13: 18
        Only a complete psycho will go to a showdown with an official with a weapon.
    2. AB
      +4
      20 January 2023 13: 06
      Your words are a plus in the direction of the author and his opinion.

      Legitimately within the framework of the law, together with the right to acquire, store, etc. No one will give you the right to be shot on the spot without trial and investigation by a negligent official.
  40. +1
    20 January 2023 09: 25
    Recently, the domestic film "Manly" appeared. The theme of the pistol and not only there was clearly demonstrated.
    I agree with the author.
  41. -4
    20 January 2023 09: 34
    I absolutely agree with the author on all points. For many years he himself had a barrel in free carry, so he constantly wore it only for the first year, then he constantly lay in a safe, because there was no need for it, and there were countless cases when employees were fired for losing the barrel while drunk, due to negligence. By the way, one more argument against - if now it’s not very easy for a simple gopnik to get a barrel, then with a huge number of short barrels sold to the population, the number of losses will increase sharply and a huge mass of left barrels will be almost within easy reach. And yes, many will give an example about knives, axes, etc. cold, which can also cause great harm, yes, but an ax or a knife cannot kill from a hundred meters, and a bullet fired even by accident or through negligence can.
  42. +6
    20 January 2023 09: 41
    Indeed, why allow the legalization of weapons if you already have them? They don’t know how to use it properly and they are all nervous. But the author who does not have weapons will have opposite reasoning: the people will become kinder and the courts will be fairer.
  43. +6
    20 January 2023 09: 52
    There are obviously two things here.

    There is a category of people who need a gun to compensate for their complexes and grievances.

    There is a category that can be subjected to a targeted attack (obscure entrepreneurs, mostly, if apart from crime).

    There are cargo cultists “I want it like in America”.

    There are kurkuli like me who will buy whatever they have at home “just in case and at all” and will never get it out of the safe.

    And the whole problem is that it is especially unclear who how many. There are no statistics. Hence, it is not clear which elements will become more and which will be less.
    1. +3
      20 January 2023 10: 40
      Well, when selling a barrel, let it be carefully cataloged through a cartridge case, or in other ways, so that any bullet fired can be unambiguously associated with a specific barrel. It is easy to embed a camera in a model of a civilian weapon that starts shooting at the same time as the safety is removed, and the absence of such a record is unequivocally interpreted not in favor of the self-defense shooter. Well, for the theft of weapons to give terms, as for preparing for a murder, so that they were afraid to approach someone else's pistol lying on the street. And then it won’t matter who buys the barrel and for what (the main thing is not to be completely crazy, but they are dangerous with a hammer), it will be much more difficult to use it for criminal purposes than unregistered ones (and for having one to plant for a long time), or in general - auxiliary equipment in the form of bricks and rebar.
  44. -1
    20 January 2023 09: 55
    About reducing crime. Here, just the opposite is true, the criminal, assuming that the victim may have a weapon, will simply shoot or stab at once, so as not to leave a chance.
    And yet, you don’t hear something that in the USA, where weapons are commonplace, this has a very strong effect on reducing crime, well, there is no dependence that gun ownership generally reduces crime.
    1. +2
      20 January 2023 10: 32
      Well, read their statistics - one of the highest levels of street crime in Chicago, where carrying weapons on the street is a crime, the largest number of mass shootings - in schools and other institutions where it is forbidden to carry weapons.
    2. +7
      20 January 2023 11: 29
      Quote: Tank DestroyerSU-100
      About reducing crime. Here, just the opposite is true, the criminal, assuming that the victim may have a weapon, will simply shoot or stab at once, so as not to leave a chance.

      Yes Yes! And instead of a banal gop-stop (you still need to look at the amount of damage), immediately sign for a cheap smartphone serious bodily or wet wassat
  45. +15
    20 January 2023 10: 08
    About one more guard got out on guard of our new marvelous bourgeois oligarchic world. The electorate should not demand, but humbly ask for what they thought they wanted to become free.
    1. +14
      20 January 2023 10: 50
      And with arguments it’s tense - Moldovans can, but Russians can’t, they can’t .. It only remains for our officials to broadcast that apparently Moldovans are smart, and those Russians are always fools. A very "plausible" and "logically sound" argument. The rest of the arguments are from the category
      - Yes, why not?
      - Patam what.
      1. +10
        20 January 2023 11: 05
        Among our people, there are many people with a heightened sense of justice. This is a good feeling, but officials are so used to responding to complaints with replies, playing the fool at work and closing the door to citizens that even a water pistol identifies a threat to them.
    2. 0
      20 January 2023 18: 01
      And what, for this, a short barrel is necessary? What prevents you from straining and acquiring hunting weapons, even rifled ones?
  46. +6
    20 January 2023 10: 29
    Yesterday I read an article about a deceased fighter of the Wagner PMC: a citizen has been in prison since 2017, having received more than 20 years for the murder of a woman and her father. He killed for 200 thousand, commissioned by a gang of black realtors who liked their apartment.
    This one died, but how many will survive and return, as if redeemed and rehabilitated, to society? Those who are used to killing in peacetime, and even those who have gone through the school of this non-war. Yes, our cities in the very near future are guaranteed to turn into a branch of hell on Earth - these returning heroes will continue to fight for the "Russian world", and they will write down its enemies and traitors primarily on the principle of owning a car or apartment they like. Or they will consider a woman who dared to refuse the defender of the Fatherland as an agent of the SBU ... And these weapons will be guaranteed. And law enforcement officers ... God forbid that they do not have to defend themselves (those who remember the 90s are unlikely to be very surprised by this thought), and relying on them in a situation of rampant criminals who have weapons and combat experience is simply naive.
    The weapon of a potential victim will not give any guarantee (and for guarantees - this is generally to the Almighty, and even that is doubtful), but at least it will allow not to be an absolutely defenseless victim, it will give a chance to protect themselves and their loved ones, at least to those who are able to decide on it. And what Staver offers is to accept the role of a sheep meekly going to the slaughter, and plaintively bleating at the same time.
    1. +11
      20 January 2023 10: 52
      I absolutely agree with you! Another "protective" opus "hold and not let go" and "no way."
    2. +7
      20 January 2023 10: 55
      With a victory, the surge will be insignificant, within the framework of cockroaches in the head, of individual personalities, but in the event of a result different from victory or even a draw, albeit temporary, the prospects are of course foggy ...
    3. +4
      20 January 2023 17: 28
      Add here the proud peoples who do not have a nationality, but who, in fact, for some reason, are allowed to carry weapons. And keep in mind that this type of activity among these peoples has been cultivated for centuries.
  47. 0
    20 January 2023 10: 48
    There is an interesting book
    Frolova. The option of legalizing weapons in Russia in the future. "Civilization of the ostrich".
  48. -7
    20 January 2023 10: 49
    I support Alexander with "both hands"! Articles "for and against" the legalization of a firearm (short barrel) have repeatedly appeared on VO! At times, even too often ... though, mostly in the "past" ... when the "apologist" of this topic was active in VO! I have always been among the opponents of the slogan: "Civilian firearms (short-barreled) - in the hands of every Russian!" " Unfortunately, we were in the minority, despite the sophisticated intrigues of the mind in search of convincing arguments "contra"! Despite the large number of such convincing arguments, we could not overcome the debulnoe "I want, I want!" majority! The oct of most of the arguments "for" simply went off scale (!), but this did not bother the "Bolsheviks"! Therefore, I will not add anything to Alexander's arguments ... I'm tired of "stopping those who rushed to the open window on the 4th floor"! But I understand and support Alesandra! Yes "with both hands"! fellow
    1. -1
      20 January 2023 14: 19
      ... tired of "stopping those who rushed to the open window on the 7th floor"!

      tired?
      shoot him in the leg
      don't have a gun?
      it's a pity...
      eat it!
      what about the author???
  49. +5
    20 January 2023 10: 50
    If we talk about breaking the law, then making or getting weapons is not such a big problem. Therefore, there is nothing here. But yes, protection. As for me, an amateur fisherman, I will say this: you have to travel farther and farther for the fish, and the predator does not sleep. The wild boar is generally divorced in darkness. The gun is hefty, it is inconvenient to carry around with it, especially if it is not a hunter. But the killer revolver is a topic. And calmly and does not interfere. I even read there are those who bring down a bear (well, in FIG, of course), but you can easily take your family with you into the forest. For me, they would allow a revolver in the forest and be happy. Well, someone may have other fears.
    1. +5
      20 January 2023 16: 28
      We have something on the hunt, a wild boar with a 12-caliber bullet in the heart ran five km until it died, and you want to drive it away with a 9 mm fart? laughing About the bear, I generally keep quiet. Yes, and they won’t come to you if they’re not mad, but a simple rocket launcher will be enough from the rest, a lot of noise, light and run away for tens of kilometers
      1. 0
        20 January 2023 18: 51
        Yes, no, Dirty Harry seemed to have about 11, besides, there was more than one cartridge. It seems that even a buffalo in Africa was filled up from it. But who knows, maybe it’s such a bad thing that even with such a bullet in the heart the boar will live, and maybe with 20 mm .. Now, what to go with a horn on him or with Samsonov’s knife? And why did you think for nine? Trunks with a bigger "hole" are quite enough for themselves.
        1. 0
          20 January 2023 23: 44
          Well, I just think the 9 mm standard is the most common thing that can be simple, anything more is exclusive and will be much more expensive, and there is no guarantee that it will help. In general, a few shots from a good screw cutter may not help in a bear, then he will die, but during this time the arrow may have time to break, and even about a gun this is not realistic at all. The SP-81 rocket launcher is quite a good thing, 4 caliber of noise and fire is immeasurable, and if it hits at all, the bear can burn
          1. +1
            21 January 2023 07: 43
            I thought about it. And a rocket launcher and a hunter's signal. The last time I was far from the city - I heard wolves. Still, the revolver is more versatile. Again, they will not be accused of poaching. Here, if we ignore the "fears of ownership from all sides" (and we really have hemorrhoids), there are a lot of pluses. I do not see for myself a more universal and convenient option. Again, for the sake of the safety of the family, you can fork out, but I think that with permission, inexpensive domestic options will appear very quickly. There is nothing to do - it is as simple as the truth. Ammunition, yes, but if it is not for hunting, then there is not much consumption.
            1. +2
              21 January 2023 10: 51
              In general, anything can happen. Here is a video - a dude in Canada filled up an elk with a pistol, I didn’t see what he had a Glock or a Zigsauer.
              (The description says Yakutia, but this is a lie, Canada)

      2. 0
        21 January 2023 10: 43
        In general, there are special revolvers for fishermen / foresters. They are needed to protect against bear-boar-moose. The task is not so much to fill up the beast, but rather to scare it away. They are needed simply so that you don’t carry a gun with you through the forest.
        By the way, this is the only case when I consider the short barrel really justified and useful. But then the forest, and then the city
        In our country, for example, wild boars have bred in unmeasured quantities. Real problem. They dug up the entire forest, not a single whole anthill, roaming around the village in crowds of 15-20 pieces, breaking fences, beds, roadsides dug up, in the evening you can’t go out into the yard - they climb around the house, grunting. And you can't shoot them.

        Here under .44 magnum
        1. 0
          21 January 2023 16: 29
          Handsome. The price tag is probably biting. You can't go wrong with something like this. But if we consider it as a weapon from all sorts of monsters), then this is, as it were, the development of a velodog with a caliber doubled.
          1. 0
            21 January 2023 18: 44
            not cheap, but the bourgeoisie costs about 600 usd

            https://taurususaguns.com/taurus-revolvers/page/7/
  50. +12
    20 January 2023 10: 52
    Why such a humiliating attitude towards our people? Why can't he be trusted with weapons? The multinational people, the winner, who personifies justice and honor, weapons must be trusted, subject to an increase in weapon culture. And you made them hot-tempered and unbalanced. If you want to express your opinion about the fact that you are against the "armed people", then look at the United States. There are many mentally ill people who drink antidepressants like ascorbic acid, among the former US military, there are many criminals who, during the "establishment of democracy", killed civilians and they are armed.
    1. -2
      20 January 2023 11: 33
      Maybe try not to be animals?
      Well, how in the USSR?
      Oh yes, HARD!
  51. -1
    20 January 2023 10: 55
    As for the short-barreled gun... no matter how much they “fire” from injuries for any reason, the same will happen with the short-barreled gun. And again, without strict control over weapons and laws on their use, there is no point in allowing them.
    But I wanted to write about the mob reserve... In 2001 I was at a training camp in Kamenka (near Vyborg). There were fees; They took physical training, went to the shooting range, and “looked” at the assigned equipment. So, at the shooting range, the novice of the monastery shot best of all... And there were about 100 of us.
    1. +3
      20 January 2023 15: 48
      Quote: Boris63
      As for the short-barreled gun... no matter how much they “fire” from injuries for any reason, the same will happen with the short-barreled gun.

      Oh no!.. I don’t agree with you. I consider trauma to be the greatest evil released onto the arms market. It corrupts the owner. It is not treated as a killing weapon, and no one considers it a weapon. Hence such a free approach, often leading to serious consequences hi
      1. 0
        20 January 2023 17: 12
        And I read that rubber arrows cannot be identified by the bullet, but the cartridge cases of those like the Osa remain in the pistol. That is, the person who opened fire with a traumatic weapon has a much greater chance of remaining unidentified than the owner of a military weapon. Which also reduces the psychological threshold for using a gun.
        1. 0
          20 January 2023 21: 00
          Quote: UAZ 452
          Which also reduces the psychological threshold for using a gun.

          I think just not. For the most part, the psychological threshold reduces the idea that this is just a “rubber spitter,” almost a toy.
          Quote: UAZ 452
          And I read that rubber arrows cannot be identified by the bullet, but the cartridge cases of those like the Osa remain in the pistol. That is, the person who opened fire with a traumatic weapon has a much greater chance of remaining unidentified than the owner of a military weapon.

          It's like that. But this situation is more typical for a cold-blooded, thoughtful person who already assesses in advance the possible consequences of his actions. This kind of guy won’t shoot left and right. This is different and more serious. hi
  52. +4
    20 January 2023 10: 59
    Some kind of crumpled, semi-crazy, in my opinion, article.... The sale of a short-barreled weapon and the right to carry it ARE different things.. The right to carry it is granted ONLY to servants of the law and military personnel, officer rank, or who are entitled to it according to the state under a contract. Everyone else has the right to transport it to the place of use (shooting range, shooting range, other other place where the pistol will be used for sports purposes). This will already reduce the number of people suffering from owning pistols.. Then, WITHOUT passing state courses in theory and practice, there should be no purchase permits. Storage of weapons only in safes, without possible access to them by strangers, including family members, except if they also have the right to purchase and use weapons (and it makes no difference whether long-barreled or short-barreled). To this I would like to add a mandatory psychological examination candidates for acquisition (preferably periodic medical examination). When engaging in applied sports, licensing is mandatory (renewal every year, based on the shooting book, where in each shooting range or other shooting club the responsible person will put a monogram with the institution’s stamp (additional indirect liability of third parties). In a word, there are enough funds to limit access to weapons to unbalanced people and people with mental disorders..
    This is all taken not out of thin air, but from the experience of owning a weapon. About myself: from the age of 12 I followed hunters in the pens. From the age of 15, hunting under supervision with a single-barreled shotgun (I understand it’s illegal, but it was still the USSR)
    I have owned weapons of various calibers and sizes for over 30 years. I hunt, but much less than before. From lobaza.. This is my opinion, if the state does not trust its citizens, then citizens are not obliged to trust their rulers, from himself with his retinue, and parliamentarians together.. Even in the Russian Federation, other calibers and cartridges other than military ones should be used for hunting , and could be much more powerful..
    1. +4
      20 January 2023 14: 24
      Storage of weapons only in safes, without possible access

      and the key to the safe in law enforcement agencies laughing
    2. 0
      24 January 2023 02: 51
      Selling a short-barreled gun and the right to carry it ARE two different things. The right to carry is granted ONLY to servants of the law and military personnel, officer rank, or who are entitled to it under a contract.


      Everyone who cares about the resolution of the Constitutional Courts means precisely free and permanent WEARING KSA.

      When engaging in applied sports, licensing is mandatory (renewal every year, based on the shooting book, where in each shooting range or other shooting club the responsible person will put a monogram with the institution’s stamp (additional indirect liability of third parties). In a word, there are enough funds to limit access to weapons to unbalanced people and people with mental disorders..


      Come on! Do you mean that the shootings in schools and universities were carried out by completely balanced people? Or were these bastards not shooting from legal guns? As far as I remember, these were all clearly unhealthy people who were shooting from legally purchased guns. Any commissions can be bypassed or bribed. What can I say - in order to extend the ROC, an acquaintance of mine, insured himself and in order not to wait 15 days (the required period without alcohol to pass the test for prohibited substances), he took his son’s urine with him when he went to the toilet - he took a leak and voila :) Of course it was done without any malicious intent, but to be on the safe side, but anyone can do this, so all these tightening of the procedure for obtaining a license will not help.
      If anything, I myself have owned a smoothbore for 8 years. I hunt almost as much, although for the last 2 years I haven’t been very successful.

      then my opinion is that if the state does not trust its citizens, then citizens are not obligated to trust their rulers, from himself with his retinue, and parliamentarians together..


      Excuse me, this is complete nonsense.
      1. 0
        24 January 2023 11: 39
        Shootings in schools and universities? hmmmmm, have you seen the statistics on murders with kitchen knives? so many people were killed there... that there was a guard. Let's now issue a license with a mental examination and other ceremonies for any blades, shovels, pitchforks and, in general, anything that can be used as a weapon wassat
        What you described is not a problem with weapons, but a problem with a system that cannot provide adequate control and certification of citizens for fitness and the right to carry them. All responsibility for shootings in schools hangs not on the guns, but on the officials who were unable to point-blank identify the Inadequate (The fact that the shooters before the incidents were “hello”, behaved strangely and generally had “problems” for some reason everyone knew, right down to the school leaders and universities ..... but the authorities that issue weapons permits did not know)
        In Russia there is a culture of prohibitions on everything and everyone (Although, as a result, the efficiency of this is zero), but there is no culture of analysis and identification of the true causes of situations with attempts to stop it in the future (Without using useless repressive methods).
  53. +10
    20 January 2023 11: 11
    The most important thing is never said. The opportunity to buy - well, let's say, implemented. Infrastructure, training - difficult, but possible.
    But until the right to self-defense is legislated, all these permits will essentially make it possible to buy weapons for your collection. It was rightly written here that there are often more problems from use than from absence. People are judged for penknives and nail files, what kind of legal self-defense is there?
    1. +2
      20 January 2023 11: 36
      And as soon as it is established, there will be a wave of provocations, let’s say someone constantly insults you, you dare to punch him in the snout, and he (if he has time) will shoot you.
      It's time to understand that the problem is in the mirror...
    2. 0
      24 January 2023 02: 53
      The most important thing is never said. The opportunity to buy - well, let's say, implemented. Infrastructure, training - difficult, but possible.
      But until the right to self-defense is enshrined in law, all these permits will essentially make it possible to buy weapons for your collection


      This means they didn’t read well, everything is written out there and laid out on shelves.
  54. -6
    20 January 2023 11: 14
    I’m simply amazed how many supporters of Mikhail Goldreer and the like there are here. Anyone who wishes can “enlighten himself” with his creations at his leisure.
    https://dzen.ru/id/5dcad3b31ddfed2344be586b
    For those who are sorry for the time to read, I offer pictures with which this “creator” illustrates his opuses.

    Very clear, right? Just a country of pink ponies, where the criminal element has it written right on his forehead that he is criminal. And he attacks with a whip, or at most with a knife, showing his intentions from afar. And only good guys have pistols.
    And this is precisely the logic of all fans of the legalization of short-barreled weapons.
    Because... guys, it’s boring for me to print the same thing over and over again, and therefore I’m just taking one of my old messages from an argument with that unbalanced person, if you’re not too lazy, read it.




    Let's figure out who actually advocates for the legalization of so-called short-barreled weapons.
    Yes, there is a certain part of those who served, and on a professional basis, in the security forces. But this part is insignificant and most importantly, these people are trained in the culture of handling weapons.
    The overwhelming majority, even if they have a controversial service in their active service, is already good. More often than not, this is not the case. They believe that having a gun with them will give them confidence and allow them to protect themselves.

    Now about the weapon itself. Its property is such that it gives a beginner a false sense of security and confidence. And as a result, a reassessment of one’s own capabilities. It is only after you find yourself in a situation where they will confront you, also with weapons, that your arrogance flies away and your brains are set in place, if they are not knocked out by a bullet first.
    And only then do you begin to understand that a weapon is, first of all, a responsibility that imposes a lot on the owner.
    For example, drink with caution, if you haven’t drilled into yourself a reflex, after drinking a glass, don’t reach for the barrel.
    And most importantly, why do you need a short barrel? Protect your home? So here and hunting weapons for the eyes.
    Well, yes, of course, so that a simple guy, a nerd, not burdened with muscles, can hang a holster on his shoulder and not be afraid of all sorts of criminals.

    But the question remains open: when to use weapons?
    Even if the rights to self-defense are expanded as much as possible, it is very difficult to catch the moment between “it’s not yet possible” and “it’s too late.”
    And the price is this: you were in a hurry and a criminal, you were late, you’re already a corpse.
    And this despite the fact that everyone will have these expanded rights to self-defense, including those from whom you are going to defend yourself.

    Let’s take a simple example: the already mentioned botanist, having put on a holster with a “pestle” under his jacket, boldly steps into the night gateway, which in other circumstances he would have bypassed on the tenth road.
    But now he is armed, what is there to be afraid of?
    And as usual, a company of boys, not burdened with intellect, but filled with fists, comes out to meet him, with the classic offer to treat him to a cigarette and other property.
    Naturally, the nerd grabs and cocks the pistol, he trained at home in front of the mirror, it turned out brutal and cool.
    But it didn’t work on the boys, they show empty hands, they say, with peaceful intentions and continue to meet halfway.
    And we can safely say that in 99,9% of cases there will be no shooting. Because in order to use weapons point-blank like this, against living people, you must have the appropriate guts. And for those who rely on a gun as the only method of protection, this very gut is thin.
    Bottom line, the botanist will at the very least be beaten up, robbed, and the gun will replenish the market for illegal weapons. And you will have to rush to the police so as not to be guilty of a murder that you did not commit.

    Alternatively, the botanist has learned the rule that if he takes out the barrel, he must shoot. And accordingly, he put down one, several, or all the scumbags who did not immediately understand that the nerd was cool in nature.
    What's next? Next there will be an investigation that will establish how everything happened. And it turns out that the murdered hooligans are not hooligans at all, but quite good home kids who listen to mom and dad, transfer grandmothers across the road, and then they went to the library at night and got lost. But bad luck, we ran into a maniac with a gun. They themselves did not have weapons; they were convinced pacifists.
    And with a life sentence, it will be little consolation to know how it really happened.
    In addition, the first to receive legal guns will be criminals. Not all of them have been convicted, and their criminal character is not indicated in their passport.
    But the ability to handle weapons is much greater, there is also much more confidence, and expanding the rights to self-defense can only help. So against them, criminals that is, the botanist has no chance.
    These are the pies with kittens.
    1. 0
      20 January 2023 11: 44
      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
      But it didn’t work on the boys, they show empty hands, they say, with peaceful intentions and continue to meet halfway.


      And what is characteristic is that their intentions are still peaceful, to use words to fish out the good guys.
      (and it’s not at all a fact that they were)
      There is no aggression, no harm, and everything is on public territory.
      As a result, it turns out that the “brave” nerd who snatched the pistol becomes a vile aggressor.
      And then a bullet flies at the nerd from somewhere on the side (well, what if you can buy it, why not insure yourself in such a case?). laughing
      1. -8
        20 January 2023 12: 17
        First of all, the legalization of short-barreled guns will simply be a gift to criminals.
        Here's an example:
        A brave “nerd” with a pistol walks through the park late at night. Suddenly a young, pretty girl runs out to meet him and says, “Uncle, save me!”
        And sure enough, two guys of typical criminal appearance are running after her, a little behind.
        To which the “nerd” grabs a pistol and decisively points the boys.
        Those - man, we understood everything - take to their heels, and God bless them.
        The girl asks to visit, she needs to get herself in order. The dress was torn in some places, the hair was disheveled...
        And at a party, shower, late dinner, wine... how can a girl’s heart not be inflamed with sudden love for her savior.
        In short, a crazy night, like a short but deep sleep, in the morning there is madness again, after which the girl, having put herself in order, leaves. Naturally, she promises to come in the evening and even wrote down her phone number; she lost hers yesterday.
        And while the “nerd” was hovering in romantic dreams, there was a knock on the door and - open up, the police!
        Without understanding anything, he opens it, and his face immediately hits the floor. A pistol and clothes are confiscated, and soon an examination confirms that it was with this pistol that a respectable businessman was killed last night. This is confirmed by traces of blood on clothes.
        1. +3
          20 January 2023 14: 39
          Just a detective. And they found the right guy. And they managed to seize the weapon. Then get to the victim, kill, leave the crime scene, return the gun. The nerd didn’t notice the loss of the barrel, which he had previously been CONSTANTLY carrying with him :)) Otherwise the scheme wouldn’t work. :) All this in a matter of hours. And the evidence is ONLY a gun and clothes. The performers themselves, of course, like ghosts, left no traces. Moreover, they have everything ready 24/7. After all, they DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY when and who will take their bait. What if the “nerd” is married? Or does he live with his mother? And when he takes the “victim” home, of course NO ONE will see them. The presence of cameras which are now like dirt. testimony from neighbors, no traces of gunpowder on hands. There is no motive, as well as the fact that the victim and the killer do not even know each other. Good story. You didn’t offer scripts for TV series?
          1. +1
            20 January 2023 18: 04
            This is just an approximate scenario of how you can substitute it. There are plenty of options for this. In any case, the “nerds” will become a source of weapons for crime.
    2. +1
      20 January 2023 16: 06
      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
      And as usual, a company of boys, not burdened with intellect, but filled with fists, comes out to meet him, with the classic offer to treat him to a cigarette and other property.
      Naturally, the nerd grabs and cocks the pistol, he trained at home in front of the mirror, it turned out brutal and cool.
      But it didn’t work on the boys, they show empty hands, they say, with peaceful intentions and continue to meet halfway.

      Uh-huh. And the boys are all so incredibly cool, and in only vests and caps the crowd rushes to the barrel ready for use (only shouts of HURRAY..! are not enough) wassat
      Once, many years ago, two muddy-looking pretzels decided to approach one of my friends (well dressed and rather nerdy-looking) in a deserted place and “talk.” Having seen the "Wasp" ready for use, they left the scene of the alleged incident at reasonable speed. I didn’t even have to give a warning in the air.
      1. +1
        20 January 2023 18: 12
        Does religion not allow you to strain your brain? No one is foolish about the trunk, even in my example.
        In your case, it’s just an injury, that’s another matter. No one will allow you to carry a pistol at the ready, and it will be of no use in your pocket.
        And if, in your example, we replace the injury with a military weapon, we get the following.
        If your friend decides to look into a sparsely populated place, then no one will threaten him in advance. They’ll just get close to him and knock him out without letting him use his weapon, that’s all.
        After all, weapons are only effective if you work proactively.
        1. 0
          20 January 2023 21: 14
          Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
          Does religion not allow you to strain your brain?

          Well, what are you saying! I'm just eating in my head laughing
          Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
          No one is foolish about the trunk, even in my example.

          Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
          Naturally, the nerd grabs and cocks the pistol, he trained at home in front of the mirror, it turned out brutal and cool.
          But it didn’t work on the boys, they show empty hands, they say, with peaceful intentions and continue to meet halfway.

          How should I interpret this then? Do they approach him with smiles and empty hands in short dashes, hiding behind natural shelters?
          Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
          If your friend decides to look into a sparsely populated place, then no one will threaten him in advance. They’ll just get close to him and knock him out without letting him use his weapon, that’s all.

          Most of the banal gop-stop begins without any attempt to use force. In a “conversation”, intimidation in the hope that the “treasonous” victim will give everything up. If it doesn't work, then there are options.
          Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
          And if, in your example, we replace the injury with a military weapon, we get the following.

          No need to change anything. That incident happened and went as it was.
          R.S: And yes. I described a real case to you, but instead of giving it an assessment, you began to twist it this way and that: “What if,” “what if.” Demagoguery however laughing
      2. 0
        24 January 2023 03: 10
        Once, many years ago, two muddy-looking pretzels decided to approach one of my friends (well dressed and rather nerdy-looking) in a deserted place and “talk.” Having seen the "Wasp" ready for use, they left the scene of the alleged incident at reasonable speed. I didn’t even have to give a warning in the air.


        And I remember a very sensational case when one girl on the subway stood up for an injured friend and became guilty.
        In general, read this topic for your own development, for example - about statistics on the use of injuries:
        https://guns.allzip.org/topic/20/139175.html
        Here, for example, is a very typical comment:
        In fact, reading the statistics, I clearly understood that almost all cases of unsuccessful use are when the attacker is “under anesthesia” (alcohol intoxication), with a very low pain threshold. Yes, in the morning, sobered up and freaking out, some of my ligaments are torn, or my ribs are broken. It seems to me that in this state, you can wet him out of Mac, and he won’t give a damn. But even if we discard the pain factor, then all that remains is the stopping power of the cartridge. It’s all true IMHO, because I made my choice.

        Now imagine that these guys who were caught meeting “our” nerd are tipsy and also with a cop? Completely law-abiding citizens who are also in favor of legalizing CCs and who also love guns and use them exclusively for self-defense.

        R.S: And yes. I described a real case to you, but instead of giving it an assessment, you began to twist it this way and that: “What if,” “what if.” Demagoguery however laughing


        I cited a real case above. And here is another real case of the use of injury in self-defense:
        https://lenta.ru/articles/2020/07/02/shoot/
        excerpt from the article:
        The operatives retrieved the recording, which was damaged in places and occasionally interrupted. But nevertheless, it was clear that Evgeniy, leaving the bar, began to pester a passerby, blocked his way and provoked him into conflict in every possible way. Then a fight broke out between them. At the same time, Evgeniy’s opponent kept his hand on his belt all the time...


        What do you say to this? Or will you say “But what if” and “What if”? :)
    3. +2
      20 January 2023 22: 08
      Write everything correctly. The arguments of supporters of “distributing short guns” are far-fetched.
    4. 0
      24 January 2023 02: 56
      the number of minuses shows that there are much more “nerds” than thinking people and this is sad.
  55. +9
    20 January 2023 11: 17
    The criminal will know that the victim may have a gun in his pocket and will not attack. Have you seen enough films about all sorts of supermen? You have a gun in your holster, and the criminal has it in his hand. And he has nothing to lose.

    What about crime? Those on the other side are not fools either; the criminals understand perfectly well that no one will particularly re-educate them. And persuade him to give up too.

    Well, let’s end with this contradiction of the author - if criminals eventually know from their buddies, from newspapers, from the news that on the gop stop here and there, gentlemen of fortune were shot by an armed victim - this is the benefit of arming the population.
    1. -1
      20 January 2023 11: 30
      Here in detail, tell us what it will look like, how an armed victim will deal with criminals?
      1. +2
        20 January 2023 11: 46
        [What do you mean how? As it was in Sagra.
        Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
        Here in detail, tell us what it will look like, how an armed victim will deal with criminals?
        1. -2
          20 January 2023 12: 19
          It was just luck there. In other cases it will be exactly the opposite.
          1. +3
            20 January 2023 12: 23
            What suggestions do you have?

            Mine are a gas cylinder and an aerosol device.
            They need to be improved further.
            1. +5
              20 January 2023 13: 16
              In principle, this is enough. Mass sales of short-barreled weapons will invariably result in them ending up in the hands of criminals.
              Protecting citizens is the responsibility of law enforcement agencies. And there must be a personal demand from them.
              Stuff like this should get you shot.
        2. 0
          24 January 2023 03: 13
          And most likely it will be like this:
          https://lenta.ru/articles/2020/07/02/shoot/
          [media=https://lenta.ru/articles/2020/07/02/shoot/]
    2. AB
      +5
      20 January 2023 12: 50
      At first I also thought that this was a contradiction, but then I realized that the author simply wrote it too unclearly. As I understand it, in the second point it is written that the criminal, knowing that the victim may have a weapon, will no longer threaten to use a weapon, but will immediately use it.
  56. -3
    20 January 2023 11: 19
    I have already written this once and will repeat it.
    Both supporters and opponents of allowing short barrels should take a tour. To the police station in a residential area, for two days - from Friday evening to Sunday evening. Arguments will be added, both in one direction and in the other.
    As for storage - on the one hand it is possible, but for this it is necessary to introduce the concept “my home is my fortress”, now this is not the case, there are cases when those who protect their home and their family from raiders are condemned for exceeding the limits of necessary defense.
    On the other hand, from my own practice. The neighbor downstairs was "cheerful." I came a couple of times to sort things out: “Why are you stomping around here, disturbing your sleep.” What if he came with a weapon, right? There is another neighbor who plays around with a hammer drill at least once a month; he has already drilled all his walls. The house is 35 years old, if that.
    The number of “neighborhood” shootings will increase, especially in apartment buildings
    1. AB
      +1
      20 January 2023 12: 49
      About neighbors: people already have enough weapons in their hands to create a genocite of noisy neighbors. But so far, more often we hear in the news how some kind of loser with an illegal/sharpened table is having fun in a public place, and unarmed people can only run away or fill him up with corpses.
      1. 0
        24 January 2023 03: 16
        But so far, more often we hear in the news how some kind of loser with an illegal/sharpened table is having fun in a public place, and unarmed people can only run away or fill him up with corpses.


        You are apparently deaf and blind. Do you want to say that the shootings in schools, universities, and colleges were not from legal guns? And I will remind you - ALL sensational cases the executions were from legally purchased guns!
  57. +5
    20 January 2023 11: 20
    A couple of days ago there was a video from the USA on the Internet.
    There, some guy with a pistol burst into a cafe in broad daylight, robbed the cashier and went out (“to a brothel, probably” (C)).
    A couple was sitting at one of the tables, eating something tasty. When the robber passed by on the way out, the man stood up, took out a pistol and shot the robber the hell out. He even put a few more bullets into the fallen man. And the cartridges cost money!
    The shooter didn’t wait for a reward for the bandit (tea, the USA is not Cruz’s “Land of Extras”), took his chicken and left.
    Everything on the camera is clearly visible.
    I was impressed.
    1. 0
      24 January 2023 03: 19
      A couple of days ago there was a video from the USA on the Internet.


      Then you need to watch other videos - how the police shoot people simply because, in the opinion of the policeman, they simply twitched. This is a direct consequence of the free sale of weapons. Children are shot for using toy machines and this is the norm. Yes, there was lamentation, and there was a scandal, but the courts recognized that the police did not break the law. Is this what you want? And this, after the police are shot several times (and this will definitely happen), will definitely happen - 150%.
  58. +5
    20 January 2023 11: 23
    I am for the legalization of storing and carrying short guns.
  59. -6
    20 January 2023 11: 32
    By the way, if you are so worried about safety that you really need a gun, why don’t these pigs sign up for the people’s squad?
    Well, if they have “gopniks doing round dances” around everyone there and in general there’s terrible things going on...
    It is doubtful that such contraceptives and sociopaths should be allowed to do so.
    In their development, they remained somewhere in a computer toy.
    1. AB
      +5
      20 January 2023 12: 45
      Is it possible to go there with your own guns? I doubt. At most they will give out a volume of useless laws to beat them with)
    2. +2
      20 January 2023 14: 34
      we even named a street after one of the DND belay
  60. The comment was deleted.
  61. +3
    20 January 2023 12: 15
    I wandered about a kilometer away. why is he against it? yes because he.... well, you understand.
  62. -2
    20 January 2023 12: 21
    What will short-barrel supporters get if their dreams come true? Yes


    But the Sharapovs are only in the movies; no one canceled the plan to reveal them. request
    1. +1
      20 January 2023 14: 35
      And I remember that Zheglov wanted to imprison Gruzdev, unlike Sharapova.
      1. +2
        20 January 2023 18: 13
        What are we talking about, there are much fewer Sharapovs than Zheglovs.
  63. The comment was deleted.
    1. -1
      20 January 2023 12: 52
      Our society is not ready to legalize guns."
      In Latvia, carrying was legalized a couple of years after independence - and nothing, no mass shootings. It is worth noting, however, that there were negligibly few people from the sky-high villages and distant deserts.
    2. 0
      24 January 2023 03: 25
      Your comment is very typical - they haven’t read the article, but they have already accused the author of cotton phobia :)))
      The author has been wearing the CS for quite a long time. FOR those who don’t read to the end, but immediately run to write comments:

      ...To be honest, I, as a person who for some time was very close “friends” with a pistol, actually sharing a pillow with him, do not understand this desire to have a weapon at home. Any person who, due to official necessity, had to deal with weapons knows very well that a pistol creates more problems than it actually protects.

      Any shot will cost you so many nerves that the second time you think to shoot or not to shoot. Even if you act strictly according to the law. How many people suffered for the notorious "excess"?.. The law is good, but any law is interpreted by a person. Alas, it is.

      ...I first shot from a single-barrel gun at the age of 12. And I started hunting on my own at the age of 14. Under the supervision of my father, but I felt like a shooter. I am sure that it was hunting that instilled in me respect and love for weapons. I wasn't afraid of weapons...


      Especially the argument about Switzerland :)))
      When will it be ready? When will there be a communist idyll and weapons will not be needed? Or when will there be hell on earth in the style of Mad Max? How can society be prepared for the state when it is ready? Or was the USA ready right away? And Switzerland too?


      Kagbe, the author already mentioned Switzerland :)
      Do we really want to live in the same conditions as the frontline Donbass? So let's introduce the same system as in Switzerland, for example. From the age of 18 you can buy a pistol. Served in the army as a machine gunner - the opportunity to have a machine gun at home, as a grenade launcher - a grenade launcher, etc.

      Beautifully so, one of the most armed countries in the world - eternally neutral Switzerland! 2,5 million trunks per 8 million population. All men who are fit for military service for health reasons are required to own weapons and be able to use them. This is part of the patriotic education of the nation. Do we just need it?

      There are other data. It is Switzerland andhas one of the highest rates of crimes involving firearms! Switzerland has one of the world's highest suicide rates using firearms. It is Switzerland that ranks second (after Norway) in Europe in terms of the level of population depression.
  64. The comment was deleted.
    1. 0
      24 January 2023 03: 28
      After the “opening of the season,” almost a larger number catch squirrels (not forest wassat). Without drinking while hunting, there would be an order of magnitude fewer accidents with firearms.


      Do you think that with cops there will be less drinking???? Naive person :))))
  65. -1
    20 January 2023 13: 06
    Oh Lord, "give us pistols and we will sew everyone up." Fed up. First, pick up an airsoft barrel with a blowback and try to hit something from 5 meters. You will be very surprised by the result. And this is in a calm environment. Under stress, you will quickly kill innocent bystanders rather than criminals. As the Israelis say, in order to have a gun, you must always carry it in the same place. And train constantly. And if you now carry a gun in a holster under your arm, and tomorrow in a purse, then in a holster on your belt, then you don’t have a gun. A fire conflict is stressful. There is no time to think, everything must be done on reflexes. And who is ready to spend hours developing motor skills? And who is ready to burn hundreds of cartridges at the training ground? Nobody! But give us the gun. It will be like that joke about the sawed-off fly.
    1. -3
      20 January 2023 13: 21
      Now the over-aged kids will mince you. They don't care about arguments, they just want a pistol. With him they will immediately become supermen. wassat
      1. +2
        20 January 2023 13: 30
        What are the arguments?
        Only a blind person would not hit target number 4 from 5 meters.

        The condition for passing the test (3 tasks in total), when obtaining a firearms license, is to hit target number 5 2 times from 2 meters with 4 rounds.
        1. -1
          20 January 2023 18: 20
          Why don’t you want to think? What kind of hits are there? First you need to assess the situation, make a decision, remove the weapon and fire the cartridge.
          In war you shoot at everything that moves. But what is the reason to shoot at a person who is walking towards you, or catching up from behind just because he is walking faster, just because he has his hands, for example, in his pockets?
          When will you realize that by the time the threat becomes clear, it will be too late?
          1. 0
            21 January 2023 00: 23
            In a revolver, there is no need to chamber a cartridge, for example. You can shoot right away.

            From a person who is coming towards you, or catching up in a non-crowded place, and even more than one, you need to increase the distance and prepare for an attack.
            Go to the other side of the street, speed up, or stop, assess the situation.
            Those who are trying to attack are now driven away by preparing in advance and demonstrating that they have means of self-defense with them.

            And as I said earlier, don’t shy away anywhere.
        2. 0
          24 January 2023 03: 34
          What are the arguments?
          Only a blind person would not hit target number 4 from 5 meters.

          The condition for passing the test (3 tasks in total), when obtaining a firearms license, is to hit target number 5 2 times from 2 meters with 4 rounds.


          Will you hit it in such a way that it hits you on the spot, or at least in such a way as to stop the attack completely? Because you can hit target number 4 in different ways.
          Even in a calm environment but under strict timing? What if we tighten the conditions and do this after, say, 20 push-ups? Something like this will happen in a stressful situation.

          In a revolver, there is no need to chamber a cartridge, for example. You can shoot right away.


          Do you know that self-cocking shooting greatly affects shooting accuracy? :) And after 20 push-ups? :)

          From a person who is coming towards you, or catching up in a non-crowded place, and even more than one, you need to increase the distance and prepare for an attack.
          Go to the other side of the street, speed up, or stop, assess the situation.
          Those who are trying to attack are now driven away by preparing in advance and demonstrating that they have means of self-defense with them.


          Will you definitely remember this when you find yourself in such a situation? People in stressful situations even forget to take the safety off their weapons, let alone “break the distance” and assess the situation...

          And as I said earlier, don’t shy away anywhere.


          In this case, why the hell is a CS needed at all????
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +1
      20 January 2023 14: 27
      Airsoft is a toy. Hitting is not a problem; the accuracy of the ball's flight is influenced more by the wind than by the crookedness of the hands.
    4. +3
      20 January 2023 15: 40
      How certain comrades still like to distort things. The sale of weapons is mainly for shooting - practical, sports, etc. In the process, a culture of handling weapons appears. Having bought a pistol, in most countries you do not have the right to carry weapons in everyday life. Safe - shooting range - safe.
  66. +8
    20 January 2023 13: 32
    Quote: AlexFly
    in Canada there is a complex procedure for obtaining it, more similar to the European one, the result is that crime with the use of weapons is tens of times lower
    Why compare the incomparable? Canada has a larger area than the United States, but a population of less than 40 million. The US has a population of over 300 million. And this does not even take into account illegal migrants, of whom there are either 10 or 15 million.
    In Canada, compared to the United States, there are no illegal migrants at all. Of course there are physical ones, but in comparison with the USA they seem to be non-existent at all.
    Canada does not have the same population mobility as the United States.
    There are many other things that are different in Canada than in the USA.
  67. +6
    20 January 2023 13: 53
    The author is right in only one thing: in the current state of legislation, a pistol as a civilian weapon of self-defense is not needed by the law-abiding population. From the point of view of Major, a self-defender = a criminal. But he just asked for a cigarette and had no intention of robbing you, really, really, I swear to my mother! He shot a criminal in the carcass, reclassifying him as a victim and himself as a criminal. And regarding the presence of “barrels” in criminals and other gopotas, there are so many of them, if earlier the boys in the gateway asked to “light a cigarette” flashing a knife, now at best they do it with a 4,5mm Makarych.

    In general, everything is according to Marx: “Existence determines consciousness”
  68. +7
    20 January 2023 13: 54
    Hello, Mr. Staver.
    I looked at the title of your article and had no desire to read it.
    Then I looked it up and then read it.
    I agreed with many of the arguments, but I want to note that the title of the article does not entirely correlate with its content.
    A strange absurdity, especially for a former political worker, or is it, on the contrary, professional - to give earrings to all the sisters?
    Now I come to the reason why I started writing this comment.
    This happened four years ago.
    My wife and I were walking our dog (shepherd, 32kg) in St. Petersburg in Nekrasovsky Square at about 22 p.m.
    About 20-30 meters ahead, a young guy of Caucasian appearance, large, well-built, is walking across us, shaking his outstretched fingers in the air, yelling: “Allah Akbar, I spat in his face, but he wiped himself off and left.”
    I assess the situation... He yells this to his flock. Another 5 or 6 people (definitely not four) are standing nearby in the park, in the shade under a tree.
    I'm tense. Shepherd is a plus. In the pocket is a "wasp" with four cartridges. He has handling skills - a retired lieutenant colonel. Also a plus. Height is only 174, weight is only 62 - it’s not clear whether it’s a plus or a minus, but in this situation it’s more likely a minus. Age over sixty is a minus. The wife is a serious minus.
    We go our separate ways, I return home and say to my wife: “Well, happy is our God, in this situation “neither a shepherd nor a wasp would probably have saved us.” here the Makarov was already needed, preferably with a spare clip.”
    A day passes, the situation is spinning in my head and I come to the conclusion that even if you had the argument you were looking for in your pocket, and they spit in your face, you need to turn around and leave. The level of conflict is not worth shooting to kill.
    This is part of what you write about psychological preparation.
    Now I'll dream up a little.
    The man who was spat in the face by a flock of like-minded people was definitely not seen; they were on the sidelines and in the shadows. He responded with a fist blow. The subject I’m talking about was over 180 tall and weighed over 80. Only a very well trained person could take him down with one blow and immediately leave. This means the skirmish will take some time and the flock hanging out in the shadows will have time to run up.
    What do you advise me to do with your pacifist principles?
    And finally, one more question.
    A couple of years ago, not very widely, but it was discussed how in broad daylight in St. Petersburg, on Liteiny Prospekt, THREE highlanders beat up a platoon of cadets. And the major who led them ran around, shook his butt and ordered him not to interfere.
    How do you, Mr. Colonel, feel about this “officer”
    1. 0
      24 January 2023 03: 45
      We go our separate ways, I return home and say to my wife: “Well, happy is our God, in this situation “neither a shepherd nor a wasp would probably have saved us.” here the Makarov was already needed, preferably with a spare clip.”
      A day passes, the situation is spinning in my head and I come to the conclusion that even if you had the argument you were looking for in your pocket, and they spit in your face, you need to turn around and leave. The level of conflict is not worth shooting to kill.


      The fact is that the majority of those who advocate for the Constitutional Court, in such a situation, would take out the gun and start making mischief. And it’s not a fact that in this case, dog lovers like you or just passers-by would not have suffered. And this is very easy.

      The man who was spat in the face by a flock of like-minded people was definitely not seen; they were on the sidelines and in the shadows. He responded with a fist blow. The subject I’m talking about was over 180 tall and weighed over 80. Only a very well trained person could take him down with one blow and immediately leave. This means the skirmish will take some time and the flock hanging out in the shadows will have time to run up.
      What do you advise me to do with your pacifist principles?


      You somehow contradict yourself. Well, if you fantasize, then based on the situation that there is only one highlander, you would not immediately pull out the barrel and shoot to kill. And if a fight broke out, the barrel would no longer help. It can only help when before the fight it is already taken out and ready for battle, and most importantly, applied. But then options are already possible, and it should be clear to you, as a retired lieutenant colonel, that the outcome from the point of view of the law is unlikely to be in your favor.
  69. +6
    20 January 2023 14: 01
    I couldn't stand it and decided to finish it.
    The Japanese say: “If you need a sword only once in your life, you should always carry it with you.”
    1. +2
      20 January 2023 14: 06
      There is an edit icon in the lower right corner of your message next to the trash can. You don’t have to add anything, you can add it.
  70. +1
    20 January 2023 14: 22
    In the current situation, the state will make it as difficult as possible (it has already made it difficult) to obtain permission for a smoothbore and a shotgun, and there is no talk of pistols. I must say that, for example, I refused the tram. Training every five years, commission, etc. and everything is paid, but in fact he is at home. But dma has a gun, then why is it needed? It’s not convenient to carry with you, and even if it’s with you, it can only help out in 20% of cases. For the person who attacks is ready, but you are not.
  71. +2
    20 January 2023 14: 23
    Holy war again.
    And again it’s a mess. Absolutely true thoughts like
    For this to happen, laws must change.

    With generally incomprehensible
    In the meantime, provided that at least part of what I suggested above is fulfilled, the purchase and storage of a short barrel can be allowed.


    I have owned firearms since I don’t remember what year, but more than 25 weapons. I will try to present it without going into UNPROVABLE fabrications about the readiness or unpreparedness of society.

    1. Every citizen must have the right to protect his life and health, the life and health of loved ones and his property. This right is guaranteed to us by the constitution.
    2. Firearms are currently the most effective weapons in existence. universal means of protection. Universal, this means that the advice “get a black belt” or “run away” is not universal. Not everyone can defend themselves with their fists and it is not always possible to run away. I would even say in most cases it is impossible.
    3. Unfortunately, firearms are also universal means of attack , that is, an instrument of encroachment on our lives and health.

    I don’t think anyone will argue with these points.
    What follows from them?
    1. Firearms MUST BE PERMITTED TO PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO DEFENSE.
    2. The use of firearms to infringe on our rights should be kept to a minimum.

    And how to do it.
    First. It has been written a hundred times that legal firearms are now practically impossible to use to protect your rights. A lot of people were imprisoned for LEGAL DEFENSE. Yes, the Supreme Court gave several clarifications, and they slightly corrected several articles. It's like a poultice for the dead. It is necessary to write clearly and clearly that I have every right to defend my and not only my life and health. And it’s impossible to get into trouble with me, that any doubts are interpreted in my favor.

    Second, it is necessary to make it difficult in every possible way for unscrupulous (in the broad sense of the word) citizens to obtain and use weapons and to use illegal weapons. To do this, it is extremely difficult to obtain weapons. Analysis, real mental examination, training, practice, qualifications in the end. Now this is a profanity. This is also obvious.

    And now something unobvious about the topic of the article. About the use of illegal weapons. Illegal weapons are usually used and carried secretly, and this is where the question about the short barrel arises. And I'm afraid that this is really a line of compromise at the moment. Carrying a weapon in your home, car, or anywhere you are stationary YES. But for this you don’t need a short-barrel gun (Alexander WHY store the Makarov at home if I can store the MP-153 there, which has an order of magnitude more firepower)
    But walking down the street, sorry NO.

    Therefore, no matter how sorry I am, now is not the time for a short barrel.
    1. 0
      24 January 2023 03: 53
      And how to do it.
      First. It has been written a hundred times that legal firearms are now practically impossible to use to protect your rights. A lot of people were imprisoned for LEGAL DEFENSE. Yes, the Supreme Court gave several clarifications, and they slightly corrected several articles. It's like a poultice for the dead. It is necessary to write clearly and clearly that I have every right to defend my and not only my life and health. And it’s impossible to get into trouble with me, that any doubts are interpreted in my favor.


      Firstly, the RF Armed Forces gave quite significant clarifications and the situation should, in theory, change, but this is yours
      And it’s impossible to get into trouble with me, that any doubts are interpreted in my favor.

      It can lead to the fact that a person who is drinking at home can easily shoot a guest - they say I was defending my home. Well, or he didn’t drink, but brought him home with a specific purpose and banged him down. So the postulate My home is my castle must be applied with caution.

      Second, it is necessary to make it difficult in every possible way for unscrupulous (in the broad sense of the word) citizens to obtain and use weapons and to use illegal weapons. To do this, it is extremely difficult to obtain weapons. Analysis, real mental examination, training, practice, qualifications in the end. Now this is a profanity. This is also obvious.


      Any tightening will also be a profanation. Because everything you listed, supposedly to make it more difficult to obtain weapons, is all there to one degree or another, but it doesn’t work as it should and is unlikely to work.

      And now something unobvious about the topic of the article. About the use of illegal weapons. Illegal weapons are usually used and carried secretly, and this is where the question about the short barrel arises. And I'm afraid that this is really a line of compromise at the moment. Carrying a weapon in your home, car, or anywhere you are stationary YES. But for this you don’t need a short-barrel gun (Alexander WHY store the Makarov at home if I can store the MP-153 there, which has an order of magnitude more firepower)

      The problem is that everyone who wants a CS simply dreams of being able to wear it all the time.

      Therefore, no matter how sorry I am, now is not the time for a short barrel.


      Well, that is, exactly what the author is talking about.
  72. +4
    20 January 2023 14: 29
    For every author’s argument, there is more than one argument against it. Two or three for sure. Before my eyes is a recently watched video. The situation is very standard. Cafe and inadequate with a gun at the cash register. Robs a cash register and shoots. And after 3 seconds he receives a bullet from an ordinary visitor from the hall. Of course, it would be difficult for the cashier and even the security guard to respond to the robber even with a gun. But from the point of view of a robber, how to go on a robbery knowing that you can easily get a bullet from any passerby. And there are many similar standard situations.
  73. +2
    20 January 2023 14: 31
    Quote: Maxim G
    What's so difficult about hitting target number 5 from 4 meters?

    Stress.
    1. +1
      20 January 2023 14: 37
      Excuses.
      Passing is also stressful.
      Quote: MauZerR
      What's so difficult about hitting target number 5 from 4 meters?
      1. +3
        20 January 2023 14: 49
        Different levels. Upon delivery of the trshch. The policeman is not pursuing the goal of sending you to the next world for a couple of hundred in your wallet.
        I agree that the most important thing is training, constant trips to the shooting range and shooting, the revival of the GTO and other “Voroshilov riflemen”. And for this you need to fulfill two main conditions:
        1. The law should protect the self-defender, and not send him to prison. For a normal citizen, the fact of using a “barrel” already provides stress for a couple of months, but now law enforcement officers write him down as a bandit.
        2. Shooting sports and all related infrastructure must be developed and accessible to the population.
        1. +2
          20 January 2023 16: 45
          If you don't want stress, don't buy weapons and stay at home

          By the way, this is not bad advice than wandering around the streets in the evening or in rotten cafes, looking for adventures. It is better to minimize the appearance in places where there may be conflict.
          I have a Vepr-12 in my safe with a 305 mm barrel.
          If short-barreled guns were legalized, I would buy that too.

          The rest I agree.
      2. +1
        24 January 2023 03: 57
        Excuses.
        Passing is also stressful.


        Well, approximately the same as when passing an exam, that is, one can say none. And in the event of an attack, there will be a real stressful situation - there will simply be a ton of adrenaline and other hormones in the blood. It's like doing 20-50 push-ups and shooting right after that. And not just shoot aiming for half an hour, but with a strict time limit on the shot.
        I'll see how you shoot like that :) And where you end up. You can hit target number 4, but for example not the silhouette, or the edge of the silhouette :) And this will be a hit :)
  74. +3
    20 January 2023 14: 57
    Quote: Amateur

    And in the United States, where weapons are allowed and almost everyone is armed, there are regular attacks on schools with a large number of victims. And how does this correlate with the presence / absence of weapons among the population? NO WAY!

    But I still remember Roslyakov. This is not the USA, this is small cozy Kerch in small cozy Crimea. And there is only one gun store here and everyone in it knows each other and shakes hands.
  75. The comment was deleted.
  76. +1
    20 January 2023 15: 03
    Quote: Andrey1978
    What are you going to the taiga with, son? With a new carbine, grandfather. Well, that's it .... The bear had a knife, a gun, now there will also be a carbine .... An incident several years ago, a PPS patrol used a weapon at a passerby who was moving down the street with an exact pneumatic copy of the AK-74. Weapons for the population is a very difficult question .... Probably a weapon for an adequate population that will not be emotionally measured by pussies, sorry with pistols, but will use them when 100% there is a need, wild rabid animals, or a hostile gadget ....

    But it’s okay, excuse me, for citizens to carry an object that looks like a barrel on the street without a cover. In airsoft, first of all, they drive into the head: “the drive is in the case, the equipment is in the backpack, the helmet is in the backpack.” And these are just toys for grown-ups. If a citizen is a sheep, then natural selection has taken him into his hands.
    Let's ban trucks again. It turns out that a road train can send a whole bunch of people to the next world!
  77. The comment was deleted.
  78. +5
    20 January 2023 15: 10
    Quote: Konnick
    What primitive thoughts in the comments. Even in the US, concealed carrying of weapons requires a special permit. Keep it at home or in the glove compartment of the car, but you can’t carry it in your pocket with you. You can carry at least an AK on your shoulder, but you can’t carry a pistol discreetly. Moreover, all these machine guns, machine guns do not have an automatic fire mode, and when you watch YouTube videos of Americans firing in bursts, these people have special permission, and transferring automatic weapons into the wrong hands is a criminal offense.

    Not certainly in that way. Guns manufactured before 1986 can legally fire bursts in the United States. Therefore, if you have an M-16 lover made in 1986 or older (and this is the part that is considered a weapon in the USA) with auto-fire, you can shoot in bursts from it. You don't need a permit for concealed carry, only for concealed carry, with the exception of some states, but even there a police officer can check the carbine legally hanging on your belt (does it have automatic fire, how long is the barrel and the year of manufacture).

    According to Americans (including “ours”), when using weapons in the United States in self-defense, in 99% of cases the law will be on the side of the self-defender. The hardest thing will be to brush aside the relatives and other interested parties of the murdered criminal. Their main message: deprivation of a breadwinner, because it turns out that the slain gopar fed an unemployed wife-mother-mother-in-law-dog and 7 orphans taken on bail...
    1. +1
      24 January 2023 04: 04
      Well then, you probably know how many innocent citizens have been shot and killed by US police simply because they suspected they had a gun and it POTENTIALLY endangered the life of a police officer. How many children have been caught with toy weapons? I remember 2 cases and I was not specifically interested in this topic. And in all cases (not only children, but ordinary citizens in general), the police acted within the framework of their law. This inevitable consequence free circulation of weapons.
      1. 0
        24 January 2023 12: 29
        If a police officer tells you to stand and follow his instructions, then it is better to follow his instructions. And no one will shoot anyone. A head on your shoulders is not just for eating.
  79. The comment was deleted.
  80. +8
    20 January 2023 15: 22
    I couldn't even finish reading it.
    "...The one who served in a normal army is better prepared, who is trained to work with those types of weapons that are assigned to him in his military specialty...."
    Military service may not affect the ownership of small arms. No way. The rocket man knows how to shoot rockets and he owns HIS weapon. But at one time they showed the rifleman to the rocket scientist and that’s all. They let me shoot a couple of times for the sake of understanding and that was enough, since he was a rocket scientist, not a sniper.

    "...Any person who has had to deal with weapons for work reasons knows very well that a pistol creates more problems than it actually protects. Any shot will cost you so many nerves that the second time you will think about whether to shoot or not to shoot. Even if you act strictly according to the law. How many people have suffered for the notorious “excess”?.. The law is good, but any law is interpreted by a person. Alas, this is so....
    And here the author is distorting to a certain extent. Just making guns easier to access is not enough. There is an urgent need to change legislation and law enforcement practice on the issue of self-defense. As long as I have lived, our country has lived for as long as ever and the question has been about self-defense and the notorious exceeding its limits. And in the police, the question is not even about self-defense, but about the performance of the police officer’s duties to protect law and order and citizens. And how will a police officer protect citizens if in fact he himself has more rights than this citizen.
    1. +1
      20 January 2023 17: 35
      ... The one who served in a normal army is better prepared, who is taught to work with those types of weapons that are assigned to him in military specialty ...."

      Yeah, I have the right to hyacinth B. laughing
      No, I'm not kidding, I'm the commander of the 2a36 gun
  81. +2
    20 January 2023 15: 26
    Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
    First of all, the legalization of short-barreled guns will simply be a gift to criminals

    It’s okay that the criminals are ALREADY armed. Incl. and legally under the guise of all kinds of private security companies, etc. (I categorically do not want to declare ALL private security companies a refuge and shelter for criminals, but that’s how it is).
    1. +1
      20 January 2023 18: 25
      Not understood? Let me explain, it is very convenient to use a pistol that is registered with another citizen to kill.
  82. +2
    20 January 2023 15: 33
    [quote=nick7][quote] In the USA there are 5 murders per year per 100 thousand population [/quote]
    You write nonsense in the states, they shoot every day on the streets in clubs in stores, and this has ceased to be in the news if there are few victims. Mass shootings get into the news, so it seems that there are few of them. On big holidays, there are cases when they shoot at the crowd, and some students are afraid to go to school because they might be killed. In the USA, a real tragedy in the killings due to the fact that you can easily buy an assault rifle /


    Actually, you are writing nonsense, but Ivan is right - in the states there are 5 murders per 100 population, and in Russia - 000. The UN rating, for example, is here - https://nonews.co/directory/lists/countries/killer. And, by the way, in most states in the United States, weapons are kept in safes, taken out of them when leaving for the shooting range, then cleaned and put back in the safe. And our problem is not in the population, but in laws and law enforcement. In the USSR it was better with this, especially after the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR in 8 and 1969. But under democracy, this right was significantly tightened. Well, in the desire of the security forces to make their lives easier. According to the principle - what if something happens. Well, it happens - with a knife, an ax, a stool. I haven’t been interested in it for a long time, but about 1984 years ago there were only a few tenths of a percent of the total number of murders using firearms. This is despite millions of completely legal (long) guns in the country.
  83. +6
    20 January 2023 15: 34
    еще ни разу не читал более запутанного и бестолкового обьяснения почему нельзя разрешить оружия населению))))автор и себя приплел и контузию и швейцарию и как недолюбленный мальчик похвалился во сколько пулять с ружьишка в детстве стал))особенно впечатлило как брутально прозвучало что спал с пистолетом как с подушкой)))это так прослужившие хлеборезом в армии потом девчонкам рассказывают что в одиночку банды в лесах брали)))ну да ладно.просто пробежаться по пунктам.что мешает при конфликте с соседом воткнуть в него офигенный кухонный нож который есть у каждого?))может потому что знаешь что у соседа тоже есть?))или потому что большинство людей все таки адекватно воспринимает последствия?при чем тут пистолет?далее.каратэ)))так смешно читать что это по словам автора оружие нападения)))на каждом углу секции каратэ и прочих контактных видов спорта и что?рухнула россия от этого?так а почему тогда автор бокс с пеной у рта не защищает?))вот где явно агрессивный вид спорта.однако что то никто не кричит что боксеры угроза обществу))про полицию якобы вынужденную стрелять во всех....вы реально всех идиотами считаете?есть четкие законы определяющие порядок действий.вы ж на красный свет не ездите(вернее некоторые ездят но это уже их проблемы))если законодательно довести до всего населения что за резкие движения или попытку угрозы можно получить пулю то большинство людей смирно стоять будут.а если идиот то кто ж виноват то?)))далее позабавило про швейцарию.....а что про финляндию забыли упомянуть?или про сша?)))надо честно смотреть реальности в глаза.сейчас часть населения ввиду недавних действий военных на кавказе и сейчас на украине давно имеет нелегально на руках боевое оружие.и что то не наблюдается кровавой всеобщей вендетты нигде.криминалитет давно вооружен до зубов.и ему ваши разрешения на оружие нафиг не нужны.от слова СОВСЕМ)))часть страны имеет охотничье и спортивное оружие которое иакже больно стреляет.и что то совсем эти люди не устраивают перестрелки на дорогах и в подьездах.а теперь две действительно главные причины и проблемы в разрешении каждому гражданину иметь оружие.первая и самая главная причина в истории нашей страны.при сильноцентрализованной власти которая всегда в россии принадлежала узкому кругу людей (царская династия,бессменные вожди партии.сегодняшняя практически единоличная власть президентская) что для нее угроза?правильно.вооруженный народ.потому что им управлять невозможно как стадом.именно поэтому большевики когда надо было свергнуть централихованную власть снаало раздали народу оружие а протом когда победили быстренько его собрали обратно.любая несменяемая власть боится вооруженного народа.и вторая причина которая скорее является следствием первой.отсутствует четкая законодательная база по продаже пользованию хранению ответственности и медецинскому освидетельствованию.хотя по охотничьему оружию все четко расписано и контролируется.и вроде никаких проблем глобальных нет.если все законодательно четко оформить и донести до граждан всю информацию то больших проблем не будет.да на первом этапе какое то количество идиотов постреляют по пьяни или дурости но при наличии суровой законной реакции все быстро придет в норму.как во всех нововведениях.а вотто о чем пишет автор это лапша на уши которую вешают с вполне определенной целью.жизнь показывает что когда ты знаешь что ты разговариваешь с человеком который можеь оказать тебе адекватное сопротивление то как то всегда начинаешь контролировать свои слова и действия.а если у меня нож или пистолет а у него ничего нет то здравствуй дядя можно кошелек твой посмотреть)))
  84. The comment was deleted.
  85. The comment was deleted.
  86. +5
    20 January 2023 16: 22
    A story told to me by a participant on this trip. This was in the mid-90s.
    A group of city residents (a little over 30 years old) drove a car to a neighboring city. The journey takes more than 2 hours. They bought quite expensive things there and, apparently, flashed the money.
    On the way back we stopped in a forest for a snack and settled down in a clearing. A car pulls up and strong young men with knives get out. They were stopped by a shot into the air from a Makarov. The gun is illegal.
    Everything ended well and we returned home. The attackers were released.
    But, as a participant in the trip said, if it weren’t for the gun, it’s not a fact that we would have gotten out of this forest.
    I will add that all kinds of “bosses” are armed with award weapons to a very large extent. And not only. One day (around 2007) I was shown a combat AK that the son of a big local official was playing with. They said that cartridges are not a problem. When asked about documents and the possibility of punishment for illegal weapons, the answer was condescending laughter.
    Let's assume that these are all stories.
  87. The comment was deleted.
  88. +7
    20 January 2023 16: 44
    Not a single plausible argument against gun ownership. Some kind of absurd babble... There are inadequate people walking around us, who will immediately start shooting at us, and we ourselves are inadequate and will also start shooting at the screaming bosses. And representatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs will be able to legally shoot anyone... Nonsense!
    1. +4
      20 January 2023 16: 51
      The author's message is that society is not ripe for carrying weapons, what is that?
      Is it possible in a mature society, but not in an immature one?
      correct answer
      In a mature and healthy society, there is no need for either citizens or police officers to carry weapons
      And in a society where there are about a million police officers alone, plus the Ministry of Emergency Situations, plus, according to various estimates, about 1.5-2 million security guards, of which 650 tons are licensed, the question of the remaining citizens wearing short-barreled guns seems ambiguous
  89. +2
    20 January 2023 17: 07
    Quote: Amateur
    a youngster offended by the whole world with two altered injuries killed 17 people in a few minutes... six adults, two security guards and the rest of the schoolchildren

    Those who should long ago be armed with normal weapons for normal ammunition - at least PM, and not semi-trauma weapons for 9x17 Kurz - are the guards and collectors.
  90. +2
    20 January 2023 17: 48
    There are other data as well. It is Switzerland that has one of the highest rates of crimes involving firearms! It is in Switzerland that one of the world's highest rates of suicides with the use of firearms. It is Switzerland that, in terms of the level of depression of the population, ranks second (after Norway) in Europe.

    And where does Switzerland rank in terms of the number of crimes per capita?) After all, this is a very crafty formulation! We do not have data on the number of crimes, but we do have data on the share of firearms involved in them - maybe these crimes are 10 times less than, for example, in the Russian Federation? And then the person killed as a result of them didn’t really care, they stabbed him with a “rose”, pierced his head with a tire iron or shot him. The result, sir... and the argument about suicide is also “weak”. We do not have data on the number of suicides in Switzerland per 10 population; perhaps this is a negligibly small figure. But of course, if a person has decided to commit suicide, he prefers to do it effectively. And the result - it’s the same - with us, let’s say, he climbs somewhere higher or takes pills or opens up - it doesn’t matter HOW he does it, what matters is how many souls per 000 will do it in a year.

    The author’s logic links the legalization of firearms and suicidal tendencies - this is just wow)) You see, purely technically, any person who has the slightest knowledge of anatomy can “cut himself out” extremely quickly and effectively, and for this he will not need a scarecrow. Some soup guy will also look at the fork and shove it into his peephole with a flourish - and now what, should everyone eat with their hands? The history of recent years shows that even Pedota, in the absence of access to firearms, finds ways to do harm “IF a sick DESIRE” - various flammable pots, axes, knives, IEDs and other fun. What can we say about an adult (physically) forehead - if there is a desire, it will not be stopped by the legalization ban. Aft