Suicide weapons

445
Suicide weaponsSuch a genre has developed on our television - I would call it a “crazy discussion.” Any statement is taken - for example, that cucumbers are harmless to people, and the guests of the studio let's challenge it. They say this is a bullshit of a scoop, all cucumber eaters die sooner or later, a pickled cucumber is generally a friend of deadly vodka and an enemy of milk ... But no one has ever died of silicate brick salad, so eat silicate bricks! The debater doesn’t care what to say, if only to loom on the screen - if he, of course, is not bribed by some brick lobby.

Approximately the same logic sounds in the body-arguments in favor of the sale of firearms weapons. De just give everyone the barrel-and we forget at once about the assassination attempt on the person! If the criminal knows that you are armed, he will not attack you at all!

But this is complete nonsense. Armed people die much more than unarmed; the knowledge that the policeman is armed does not stop the gangster from the same gun or knife. Yes, for those who, by virtue of the service, have to climb on the rampage, the weapon is a defense, but only together with a professional skill that cannot be sold from the counter. At one time I talked a lot with the holders of the service barrels, and in order not to fall into the abstract “I think so, I think this way,” I’ll give you a few examples from life itself.

I had a friend, the investigator Dmitry Lilo, known in 90 for his successful work, and also an experienced sambo wrestler. And tells how. He received a new apartment in Mitino, returned home, went out of the elevator, and then someone with the words "Hands up!" Puts something in his back. He, who is always on the alert, makes a standard U-turn, puts his foot on the face of the unknown, flings his hand behind his back and puts his trunk against his forehead. The same yelling: “I was joking! I am your neighbor! ”Since this was the case, they further dispersed peacefully; a neighbor paid for his joke only because a week later, because of the dislocation of the cheekbones, he could eat one liquid.

But that's the point. Thanks to the automaticity of possession of weapons, his master did not get confused in a sword belt, did not accidentally press the trigger, without shooting down either his neighbor or himself. Not a bad joke could send one to the next world, the other - on the bench. Why one more old friend of mine, Moscow judge Vladimir Kulkov, once said that he was issued a protective trunk:

- Yes, I don’t need his gift! I am not an opera, who goes to the shooting range once a week, there is no skill. Groaning unarmed - I will sit down for exceeding self-defense, and armed me will crash first. And this is me, the past army, but what about our judges, women!

- How do you defend?

- My reputation protects me. I do not take bribes, judging by my conscience, that is why threats, if they happen, are extremely rare.

- And then what?

- I call the head of the Department of Internal Affairs, he gives escorts, I go with them to the service and home, while there are signs of danger. And a gun for me is not only not a defense, but an extra risk factor!

This is also a typical case. Back in the gangster 90, I walked with three operas on some drunk in their department, and they decided to show me, for the impression, live bandits. We took another vodka and drove to some kind of floating stash in the strict flood plain, where some ghouls met us in mild shock, but sat down to drink with us. My friends soon completely drunk, quarreled among themselves, and put one in another. It was winter, they came out on a slippery shore and let's beat their arms and legs, falling every now and then, in front of a very pleased with such a spectacle urla. I shouted "Good shame organs!" I rushed to separate them - and flew away mug in the snow. Everyone was somehow separated by another of our companions, dragged into the car, and the sergeant drove us around the house.

The next day we called back, giving mutual vows; but what is the moral again. Those operas were in possession of weapons, but, owning them at the level of instinct, even in a dead form they did not let it in the wrong way. Therefore, all ended with a pair of bruises and a shaken from the deputy search officer - and not a bloody mess, which would have been inevitable otherwise.

Another example: I had a friend, an amateur boxer, with whom we went through about one youth: hiking around girls, discos, nature, and so on. He always ended these trips according to the stereotype: “There are three of you, I have nowhere to go, I’m one bang, he flew away, another bang, the third to run ...” But I, who didn’t have his blow, for some reason always had where to go situations - and managed to leave them without a massacre.

That is, everyone uses what he possesses; but I would in our current element be the best means of self-defense, more reliable than any cannon, I still called brains. Well, cut yourself on the nose: do not offer an alien girl in a night tavern to blow you to this minute! Do not drink in the vestibule of the last train with strangers. Do not yell awkwardly turned the driver: "Goat! Rooster! ”Do not drive at least over 100 kilometers per hour around the city - and there will be a lot less blood at once!

Life has already shown that a traumatic weapon, supposedly created specifically for self-defense, did not reduce, but increased the number of civilian injuries. For the boxer buddy syndrome works: everything that is charged, madly wants to be discharged; there is no reason - he will create it himself. The singers of civilian weapons, in the spirit of their delusional logic, respond to this: “And they will reduce combat weapons!” Well, that is, they let the children play with a knife, they hurt them; then we will give everyone a dagger - that will be a good judge!

Even the same singers seduce our morally muzzled people with such an advertising tale: “Firearms are the protection of personal dignity!” But personal dignity does not start from here! Try to ask for a start to ask your boss not to poke - probably a hundred pots will do! No gun is needed for this; and if you're a coward in the shower, and the 150-mm howitzer will not make you brave!

Obviously, all these fairy tales are composed just for those fools, for whom not only firearms - and it is dangerous to give matches in hands! Their children, who easily find cognac, credit cards and car keys in the secret father’s bills, will find a gun - and immediately drag him to the courtyard and the school. And combat is, in contrast to the traumatic, such a fascinating thing that anyone you want to take the head off!

Here is more about personal dignity. In 91, before departing from Tajikistan, which then changed its fraternal appearance to a non-brotherly one, I went to the market to buy some sweet fruits there. And suddenly a rush from a local Nazi with a gang of his nukers rushing at me: they say, get out while you are alive, everything is not for you! But it seemed to me that it was unworthy of my nation, and, knowing a little about local customs, I decided to engage in a dialogue with him:

“Listen, dear, you can kill me, and about them,” I pointed at the merchants with a picture gesture, “did you think?” They dragged their goods here for me, because I will pay as much as the local will not pay! I do not bargain, I am in a hurry on a plane, and with my money they will buy their children clothes and books to school. And you and their children want to rob! ..

That savage at first rypnulsya to me - but since the whole market, excited by my loud speech, took the side of the buyer, he had to skate. And in the end, I also had so much more that I barely dragged myself to the plane. Well, and if, for example, I had a barrel with this skirmish, and I, without further ado, would have taken it out? Already, of course, would not have written these lines.

In those 90, the population of these trunks had enough - and that, less killed? As we have no family in which someone would not have fallen into the Great Patriotic War, so after the 90's, there was no person left who did not have victims among relatives or friends of the gunfire of those years.

Another argument for the free sale of firearms: the police still will not protect us! But if you dance from such logic - and the court does not judge, the deputies will not save - you need to sell all the judicial gowns, and deputy mandates! And disappear into the primitive system, where everyone is himself a plowman, a doctor, a defender, and a judge.

We already have this barbarization, when almost every stall has its own security guard, security structures themselves begin to rob - and they need more security guards. At the same time, more wild-growing peoples, far from the civilized division of labor and functions necessary for the production of more complex than simple robbery, machine tools and airplanes, win. As long as a cultural graduate who has fallen under the savage knife, will write to the prosecutor's office about the inaction of the police, and there they will disassemble it for half a year, these self-sufficient savages will finish cutting it a hundred times. And only he, who has already collected all weapons, will his legalization add strength. But then it will be necessary to forget about all our airplanes altogether, and those who have already grown together with human civilization will be completely hammered. And the only way out of this is to strengthen your defense structures, and not to degrade to personal barbaric self-defense.

And the strongest argument of weapon liberals: in America, weapons are freely sold! Well, if you do not fall on your knees before any other experience, once loans from it are useful, sometime not. But just something to lick, ape-like lot of idiots. An airplane is faster than a car, but simply taking the wings of a car and chaining it will not go at all. In America, much more is included with the arms trade: the death penalty for murder, a firm trial, and the police are worse than ours for economic crimes. But about this friend, our liberals have no gu-gu: they say, selling weapons is liberal, and punishing criminals is a soviet relic! That is, they are essentially in the position of urla, whose cherished dream is about a crime without punishment. Well, drench the "goats" not with an ax, but from advanced beretts and Colts, which, of course, will flood our arms market in the event of its opening.

Speaking of the death penalty, about which we, too, does not abate the shaft of these abstract disputes. Here is an opinion about her of the same best in 90-e hunter for murderers Lilo, rejected by the Prosecutor General for his high hunting rate:

- From a long conversation with the bandits, I learned one truth: that apart from the tower, they are not afraid of anything. They told me bluntly: “15 is not scary for years, we will buy lawyers, we will buy a court, they will be sentenced to eight years ahead of time, will be released early for good behavior - in five years you can go out. And against the tower - there is already no reception. ” If I had my way, I would have divided all the inhabitants of Butyrka into two parts. I would kick one out right away, because if a peasant drunk a bottle of vodka, there’s nothing for him to hang out in the cell for half a year, wait for the court. Tear off at ten people and say: “Vasya, don't do that anymore!” And the second half, all the murderers, was shot, so that everyone would think than take risks before they killed. And now the murderer thinks: “Well, at the very least, I will change the situation for five years, but in the current order we will live in a nice zone ...”

The death penalty is not a panacea, but one of the restraining measures in conjunction with others. For in the complex modern world only systemic approaches are productive, but only one bad decision can destroy everything at once. And in our case it is free to sell weapons - it is to renounce any civilization and to loudly announce the beginning of a new civil war. Already not for the redistribution of property, but simply for its destruction.

In America, the personal winchester became attached to his hands when, after her civil war, 1861-65 distributed Lincoln to everyone on a plot of land, which had to be personally defended. They have their own tradition, we have our own; and to us individual weapons will not replace public security tools, like the hunt for mammoths is modern agriculture. In it, we have blindly copied the West - and left without it. We buy the lion's share of food - what has put someone else's trunk on our temple, and we must pray day and night that he will not shoot. But public safety, with its collapse, cannot be bought overseas; Strangers cops, as we hire all sorts of coaches and hockey players, you will not hire!

To distribute everything to the trunk, instead of returning to the system such seasoned pros as Lilo, who had 100 percent detection rate - it’s like putting another homegrown barrel on your head. But out of it, without that iron grip that my friend revealed in the scene at the elevator, it is necessary to babahnet — and so that he will knock out our last brains.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

445 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    January 10 2013
    The question, in general, is controversial, but the article was not at all impressed, the arguments are somehow strained.
    1. +32
      January 10 2013
      Yes, normal arguments. I think the population does not need a short-barrel, there will be more harm. Now it is allowed to keep hunting and self-defense weapons at home, this is enough.
      1. +21
        January 10 2013
        Any weapon attracts a situation in which it can be used. So it’s better not to provoke fate.
        1. Bubo
          +8
          January 10 2013
          I agree with you gentlemen. The current situation is quite sufficient. Only hunting is allowed, and this should be stopped.
          1. +13
            January 10 2013
            Everything needs reasonable sufficiency. Weapons to protect the family at home will not harm a normal peasant; you will not carry a hunting trunk with you everywhere. But possession of a weapon makes a person (reasonable, of course) more responsible. I will give an example. A couple of years ago, a drunken neighbor kicked my little kid in the neck for hitting him on goal. The next morning I came to talk to him, he began to carry nonsense, well, I could not restrain myself and marked him. An ambulance was called to him, and an ambulance reported to the police. It saved me that my wife wrote a statement on a neighbor for beating a child, they dispersed as they say in zeros. But the district police officer specifically warned me that he would take another barrel and he would take it from me. It worked, I try to go around drunks and hide my fists in my pockets.
            1. +3
              January 11 2013
              Very interesting article. Before her, I was two-handed for a firearm, and now I doubt very much, because the person is talking about the matter.
              1. +5
                January 11 2013
                Quote: crazyrom
                Very interesting article. Before her, I was two-handed for a firearm, and now I doubt very much, because the person is talking about the matter.
                -
                You look so much like my mother-in-law - she, too, after watching the next TV show, doesn’t eat fish, then sausage, then meat, in short, what they show, she doesn’t eat. laughing okay, I wouldn’t eat all the time - so for a couple of days the mood is enough, and then it bursts all for a sweet soul.
              2. +5
                January 14 2013
                Quote: crazyrom
                Very interesting article. Before her, I was two-handed for a firearm, and now I doubt very much, because the person is talking about the matter.

                Why is it interesting? So that he is an exclusively civilian / and who else, instead of a barrel, will say, "put another home-grown barrel to your head." once served a term repeats horror stories about the fear of owning a weapon?
                Quote: Alexander Roslyakov
                They have their own tradition, we have our own; and to us individual weapons will not replace public safety features.

                - For reference, before the revolution, crime was lower with the free sale of weapons.
                In Moldova, too, there were no traditions of use - but for you the revelation that crime has fallen sharply?
                Then here is the UK data

                or Lithuania

                Colt paired with a polite word is much more effective than just a polite word
                here from the weapons forum:

                well, with humor -

                if all this doesn’t shoot people at a drunkard or a bull’s desire among hunters, why should it shoot at normal and adequate owners with a short barrel?
                1. +1
                  January 16 2013
                  Quote: Ghen75
                  if all this doesn’t shoot people at a drunkard or a bull’s desire among hunters, why should it shoot at normal and adequate owners with a short barrel?

                  And this, by the way, fits well into the article. There is a culture of possession of hunting, long-barreled (sporting) weapons in Russia, and it is very old, with its own traditions and even customs. The short-barreled weapon - for the most part, the population has never had it (I mean really massive possession - as now there are over 5 million long-barreled weapons), how often does it shoot out of order? Very rarely. And they introduced the so-called. "traumatics", how often did they shoot? Almost a week has not passed, and 95 percent of this shooting from crime to just a violation. They do not go with a hunting rifle to pubs, nightclubs and discos, this is not accepted. And with "traumas" only so they fell there. For self-defense at home, a car, now, as we see from the presented picture, the funds are quite and quite enough. So the myth that the people of Russia are unarmed does not stand up to any criticism.
                  But the presence of "trauma" (well, in the dreams of a combat short-barrel is more powerful) in a person's pocket can really make a little "Remboy". And if before that he simply would have avoided dangerous situations, then the presence of a powerful argument in his pocket prompts him to take rash risks like night walks in a "bad area" or a desire to make a rude remark to a bunch of young people excited by alcohol.

                  And while communicating with aggressive supporters of the resolution of the combat short-barreled, I often hear such an argument that when it comes to life, then all means are good, they say, on bunks, it is better than in prison. Okay. Then the question is, now you carry with you some kind of tool for protection, well, for example, a good knife. More often the answer is no! Where is the logic? That is, we want to protect life, right up to hitting the bunk, but for some reason only with the help of a pistol, and a knife is so vulgar. So here I think in many respects there is a conversation not about the protection of life (property, as we have now found out there is quite enough to protect), but about the so-called. "brutality". Say, I'm not just a whip in a hat, but I will be a tough guy with a "real bag". How many of them (shooting at best once a year for 10 rounds) will be able to competently tactically, legally apply it is not even worth guessing. Units!
                2. 0
                  January 22 2013
                  +1
                  to the point, especially the last point was always surprised ...
          2. +6
            January 11 2013
            I express solidarity and I. A simple line of reasoning:
            I don’t suppose that someone can advocate for a simplified procedure for obtaining the right to the COP (we are talking about a short-barrel, not about hunting weapons). Then, how many and what checks should the applicant for the COP pass?
            How many time and money will have to be paid for a medical and psychiatric examination, legal and "tactical" training, training in the shooting range, organized or independent tracking of legal practice in cases involving the use of a COP, for weapons and means of care, storage of it? Where with these weapons it will be possible to appear, and where will it create big problems for me? (in offices with security, they will require the COP to deposit, you can’t go to the bank, you can’t go to the theater, ........, you can’t even keep them in the workplace) Will there be any additional problems of the obligation to present weapons for checking, perhaps, and have to prove an alibi?
            If we add to this that in the summer it is impossible to secretly wear it, and in the winter it is difficult to quickly remove it from under the clothes, then most likely it (KS) will lie at home (danger to their own children), waiting for walks around the house with a dog. So I will summarize: there is no practical sense, but they are going to milk me (us) with a new type of service created around a "fashionable chip" - the possession of a COP!
        2. Misantrop
          -6
          January 10 2013
          Quote: alexneg
          Any weapon attracts a situation in which it can be used.

          So you are a potential kitchen maniac? Let’s isolate you just in case from society? Whatever happens ... what
        3. +6
          January 10 2013
          And any weakness attracts aggression. Therefore, more often rob old women. And the United States is not to blame, they are provoked.
      2. s1н7т
        +5
        January 10 2013
        Quote: sergey32
        I think the population does not need a short-barrel, there will be more harm

        Shopipets! Another our national tradition is to decide for others what they need! The ban on anything is stupidity! It is necessary to educate responsibility, and not to limit opportunities!
        1. +13
          January 10 2013
          s1н7т,
          If you follow your logic, let's legalize heroin, and that millions of people will swear by their mother that they need it.
          1. Misantrop
            +5
            January 10 2013
            Quote: sergey32
            let's legalize heroin

            And what, there are statistics that heroin brings (besides unconditional harm) benefits? Someone other than a drug dealer
          2. +9
            January 10 2013
            Quote: sergey32
            let's legalize heroin

            No need to juggle, heroin is a derivative of morphines, and they are known to be used by doctors as a strong pain reliever, according to your logic it is necessary to ban morphines, so that there is no addiction? The article correctly touches upon painful points, our society is slowly copying the Western style, but then it’s not bad to amend the laws, but then the Constitutional Court is allowed, sooner or later this will happen, so we need to prepare for this. At 90, many moral landmarks are lost, new ones are still hard to take root, but society does not stand still, as they say "everything that is done moves in the right direction, but in the worst ways."
          3. +2
            January 10 2013
            Quote: sergey32
            let's legalize heroin

            Yes, supporters of such a bill in the Duma still at the stage of thinking about it roll up under the asphalt, they won’t give a word to say!
            Too much money.
          4. +9
            January 10 2013
            No need to confuse self-defense against suicide. The thing is that people who advocate the legalization of firearms want legal grounds for their acquisition. That means they have no idea to buy a legitimate weapon, and use it to commit a crime. This is insanity! Weapons criminals have full pockets! The weapon of secretive wearing is necessary for that, so that it would not be clear who has it and who doesn’t.
            1. 0
              January 16 2013
              Quote: Aliv
              Weapons criminals have full pockets!

              Another of the most common misconceptions of supporters of legalization.
              Imagine that you are a beginner robber, well, try to buy yourself a couple of barrels in Moscow, the probability that the police officers will gladly sell it to you is simply off scale, but maybe you are lucky, it will be a simple "kidok" money will be taken - and hello. The bulk of the same street robberies, robberies, for example, in Moscow takes place without the use of firearms "threatening with words", or "inflicting beatings" or "threatening with a knife", as well as various robbers using pneumatically similar in appearance to military toys.
              Firearms are not used very often and in really serious cases. As a rule, a group is involved. So if such an armed group is really interested in an ordinary average citizen for some reason, his pistol in his pocket will definitely not help him.
          5. mazdie
            +3
            January 10 2013
            Right! And we’ll ban cars, kitchen knives and planes. Oh horror, they are deadly! The culture of circulation must be educated!
            1. 0
              January 16 2013
              Quote: mazdie
              The culture of circulation must be educated!

              I will repeat myself. There is a culture of handling weapons in Russia and it is old. But precisely with long-barreled weapons - hunting, sports. But the short-barreled culture? Well, the experience of "trauma" has shown.
    2. +13
      January 10 2013
      Quote: Vladimirets
      but the article was not at all impressed

      "He who has eyes, let him see ..."
      Not impressed? Yes, you are simply stuck on a crazy idea, "a gun is a panacea for all problems," or under the influence of computer shooters.
      Real life, not Call of Duty, where virtual life can be replayed, does not work here.
      The article is a big plus, everything is laid out in the examples.

      PS: for the supporters of the gunshot, think in the world now there is a lot of anger and possession of weapons will give way to this anger. Stop destroying your own kind.
      1. +14
        January 10 2013
        Quote: Ustas
        Not impressed? Yes, you are simply stuck on a crazy idea, "a gun is a panacea for all problems," or under the influence of computer shooters.
        Real life, not Call of Duty, where virtual life can be replayed, does not work here.
        The article is a big plus, everything is laid out in the examples.

        Dear,
        Quote: Ustas
        "He who has eyes, let him see ..."

        this is just for you. Are you reading poorly? I wrote that
        Quote: Vladimirets
        The question, in general, is controversial,

        I'm not fixated on anything and let's not think about who saw what in "real life". There are pros and cons in any question. I, in particular, "see the issue of legalizing short-barrels in Russia and the pros and cons. The pros are that no matter what they say, the pistol gives the citizen a real chance to defend himself. We are not talking about stoned citizens or those who were attacked unexpectedly. , but the firearms can simply be demonstrated to the gopniks in the gateway and this can sober them up. On the other hand, most of them will not have access to pistols, neither in terms of prices, nor according to the procedure for obtaining them, and the Mujahideen will legally ride with them in Lexus. Yes, traumatics must be banned as dangerous And about the possession of weapons ... You see, our legislators, as mentally ill, should the idiot Vinogradov shoot people in the office, immediately Mrs. possession of a hunting weapon and the prohibition of carrying it in a state of alcoholic intoxication.Not at all a supporter of drunkenness with barrels, but was Vinogradov drunk pimply youth? No, just another populism complicating the life of law-abiding citizens.
        1. webdog
          +2
          January 10 2013
          Vladimir, to the Russian population, due to the mentality, military weapons can only be given during the war ...
          then the sense will be positive for the state and bad for the adversary)))
          let it be better that those who are supposed to have weapons, and not to whom they want.
          it’s still possible to defend the house, but even that, some guys will shoot each other, instead of the usual fight)))
          I think so.
          1. Misantrop
            +9
            January 10 2013
            Quote: webdog
            Due to the mentality of the Russian population, military weapons can only be given during the war ...
            Sorry, but ... nonsense. Throughout its long history, a free Slav was NEVER unarmed. Only under Khrushchev disarmed
          2. gladiatorakz
            +11
            January 10 2013
            Quote: webdog
            Due to the mentality of the Russian population, military weapons can only be given during the war ..

            Just how will he fight them? Never holding a weapon?

            Quote: webdog
            some guys will shoot each other, instead of the usual fight

            What is a "normal fight"? He participated dozens of times, but not a single one similar. When three with knives versus one with a fist? When does a master boxer beat a bespectacled man? Fights are rarely equal. Yes, and not a little perishes in them.
            The weapon should be - but under control. Checks of PND, UK, etc.
            More vodka and drugs must be fought. Here millions die from this.
            1. webdog
              0
              January 10 2013
              gladiatorakz, "What is a" normal fight "? I have participated dozens of times, but not a single one similar."
              Well, yes, here on the site almost all of Bruce Lee))))))))))))
              do not be offended, just your remark is not an affirmative fact (and not only yours)
              I think so.
              1. gladiatorakz
                0
                January 10 2013
                Quote: webdog
                Well, yes, here on the site almost all of Bruce Lee))))))))))))

                Quite possible. Just do not understand where the relationship? Fight and Bruce Lee?

                Quote: webdog
                just your comment is not an affirmative fact (and not just yours)
                I think so.

                What is an affirmative fact? what
          3. -11
            January 10 2013
            Quote: webdog
            it’s still possible to defend the house, but even that, some guys will shoot each other, instead of the usual fight)))

            Fewer people, more oxygen. Natural selection will take place, idiots will become smaller. Survivors will draw the right conclusions and use the weapons for their intended purpose.
            1. +1
              January 10 2013
              At first, there will be only morons, then there will be thugs. Yes, perspective! I don’t think I’d like to live in such a country. For normal people, it’s fate to feed morons and thugs. If you are lucky to survive, go to morons.
              1. heathen
                +1
                January 11 2013
                Thugs in this case will first die out, assholes in the second.
            2. 0
              January 13 2013
              Well, what, minusers, pulled back ??? And now we carefully read all the posts below and get to the material about two drunken Americans, the girl foolishly shot a friend. By stupidly violating ALL rules for handling weapons. We have, minus two idiots, one was killed, the other is in jail. Well, and who is right? Well, of course, you all KNOW that I am wrong, we continue to delay. Atom him !!!
          4. +5
            January 10 2013
            Quote: webdog
            Due to the mentality of the Russian population, military weapons can only be given during the war ...


            The trouble is that our rulers and many, like you, at their instigation consider our people an inadequate cattle, unable to think and control themselves sensibly. Stop hating your people, dear!
            No mentality has anything to do with it! The country has a huge number of owners of weapons, and smoothbore, and rifled. Something cannonades in the streets can not be heard ... Weapons (not a travesty like trauma) disciplines!

            "let those who are supposed to have better weapons"

            And how often do you see these "those who are entitled" on the streets of our cities? The last time I saw a normal police patrol was at the end of the Soviet regime. I am already silent about the critical situation ... They will go later to examine your corpse ...
          5. heathen
            +1
            January 11 2013
            That is, you want to directly state that the Russians, in contrast to the enlightened Europe and the Americas, where the firearm is legalized, are inferior people? So what?
          6. Ahmar
            -2
            January 15 2013
            webdog,
            and where does the mentality? Are you hinting that in Russia everything around is complete idiots and as soon as they get the barrel they will start firing right and left? There are enough idiots everywhere and not only in Russia. Nevertheless, I am against the Constitutional Court because unfortunately it’s not difficult to buy the necessary certificates, as a result, everyone will be lazy to own. For self-defense, a hunting house is also sufficient.
        2. Beltar
          +3
          January 11 2013
          The attack is almost always unexpected.
      2. Denzel13
        +19
        January 10 2013
        No need for trunks to the population, morons and idiots for 100 years in stock, scared for the children. A moratorium on the death penalty must be lifted, why look back at the geyropa - murderers, rapists, pedophiles and traitors at a loss.
        1. predator.3
          +9
          January 10 2013
          We need to look at the statistics of the use of traumatic weapons, otherwise lately, some hot Caucasian guys have been using trauma, now they are all completely armed!
        2. Misantrop
          +2
          January 10 2013
          Quote: Denzel13
          morons and idiots for 100 years in stock
          Do you think that there are practically no such morons and idiots in countries with permitted weapons? Extinct as a species? winked
        3. +2
          January 11 2013
          Quote: Denzel13
          No need trunks to the population, morons and idiots for 100 years in stock
          - here I see a daily program of grinding the population
          that it’s a dumb thumping redneck - it already worked for you.
          1. Denzel13
            +2
            January 11 2013
            Quote: lelikas
            already worked for you


            Do you think that only highly intellectual individuals like you are able to draw conclusions?

            You see, after completing my service in the Armed Forces, I worked quite a lot in law enforcement (not in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, no offense to the employees of this department of professionals, there are not so many (turnover, etc.), but there are also very valuable workers, however, they management usually does not see this).
            Therefore, having considerable experience, I can judge this issue very knowledgeably.
            1. +1
              January 11 2013
              Well, you, I’m more likely a practitioner than a theoretician and IQ is only 140,
              but here is your
              Quote: Denzel13
              I have worked quite a lot in law enforcement
              -only confirms my words - after communication you have developed a stereotype of the surrounding cattle and others for 100 years in advance.
              Himself stopped loving people by starting to work with them.
        4. heathen
          +1
          January 11 2013
          It’s scary for children right now ... when free citizens do not have normal legal means of self-defense
      3. webdog
        +2
        January 10 2013
        Ustas, I support you.

        Denzel13, "why look back at gayrope - murderers, rapists, pedophiles and traitors at the expense"
        1000 times - "FOR"!

        the article reveals the essence ...
        whoever walked with a weapon knows the feeling of permissiveness that tickles the nerves of a novice ...
        and when everyone will be armed, then not riots, but a bloody revolution can be organized in a matter of weeks ...
        I think so.
        1. +3
          January 10 2013
          Quote: webdog
          when everyone is armed, then it’s not riots, but a bloody revolution that can be organized in a matter of weeks ..

          Quite right. Everything goes to this. And I think that our "friends" - advisers with a star-striped ass are pushing to legalize firearms in Russia. The State Department will benefit from another civil war in Russia. Here then comes the implementation of their plans for the collapse of Russia and control over our resources.
          Look at Syria, how many have already died, and not only because there are a lot of mercenaries who are hated by Assad, but also because a certain part of Syrian citizens has a different point of view and they spread it by force of firearms.
          1. +1
            January 10 2013
            Will you distribute it a lot with the COP? They use automatic and so on. etc.
            1. 0
              January 10 2013
              Forgot the story! The revolutionaries in Russia began with the Nagans, fired on city officials and officials. Then the bombs came and then it came to rifles. But with the help of foreign patrons, Germany in the first place.
              1. heathen
                0
                January 11 2013
                firstly, bombs are no longer legal weapons. and secondly, shooting from a registered weapon now is like leaving your fingerprints at the crime scene.
          2. -1
            January 10 2013
            Here I agree with you. Give man freedom so he wants more. And it is better to keep thieves in law so that everyone lives in fear and does not raise their heads. it’s more convenient to manage cattle.
          3. heathen
            +1
            January 11 2013
            funny. so I see the civilian population proudly running with the brand new short-barrels on armored personnel carriers and tanks. Do you seriously believe that?
            1. +1
              January 13 2013
              Quote: heathen
              funny. so I see the civilian population proudly running with the brand new short-barrels on armored personnel carriers and tanks. Do you seriously believe that?

              It is useless, dear, you look at the rating of the article. We are just in the minority with you and other like-thinkers. Any reasonable arguments are powerless, only the emotions of former employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the townsfolk, "we don't want, and you nizzyayaya !!!). Well, people do not believe in the fact that someone other than themselves in this country may be adequate.
        2. Misantrop
          +6
          January 10 2013
          Quote: webdog
          he who walked with weapons knows that feeling of permissiveness

          All commanders of the warhead-3 then need to be proactively shot. And what, in the hands of two nuclear warheads, the use of which permission from Moscow is not required. That's where permissiveness wassat

          Mentality, permissiveness ... In Abkhazia and South Ossetia now the trunks (and any of them, even heavy weapons) are above the head, only the lazy ones did not arm themselves. Are there many criminal and domestic showdowns? These fears (a sharp deterioration in the criminal situation) would have been justified if there hadn’t been for the country a huge number of looted and sold out warehouses and a bunch of local conflicts. Those who wanted criminal shooting have long been armed with anything to choose from
        3. +4
          January 10 2013
          Quote: webdog
          whoever walked with a weapon knows the feeling of permissiveness that tickles the nerves of a novice ...

          I worked with weapons for many years, traveled around the country, never experienced any sense of permissiveness. A special feeling of attention, tension is yes. It is a very big responsibility. I have never had to use it, thank God. Once I had to demonstrate, all the questions were solved by themselves. No normal person will use weapons without reason when he understands that they are guaranteed to be punished very severely for this.
        4. +1
          January 10 2013
          You definitely are contraindicated in weapons! I walked with weapons, nothing tickled me. There was a sense of responsibility and a bit of pride.
        5. 0
          January 14 2013
          Quote: webdog
          whoever walked with a weapon knows the feeling of permissiveness that tickles the nerves of a novice ...
          I can fully admit that such sensations may be present, but this is a weak argument. In terms of introspection, imagine now that this "newbie" knows that someone who may accidentally witness a conflict, not to mention the participants, can also have a barrel, and that someone has every right to use it if he has the fact of manipulation with the barrel is inadequate to the situation or in an inadequate state. Like, just bare the barrel in an urban setting - you have the full opportunity to get your hands behind your back, face on the asphalt, and not only from law enforcement officers. And yet, if we consider that the "newbie" before handing the barrel, it was specifically explained in the pictures, and also that "who is given more from that will ask for more" ... I think so - from the "newbie "side sensations will disappear. And if all this and other points related to the responsibility of exploiting the short-barrel are explained in advance, then everyone will ask themselves the thought - is he ready for such hemorrhoids? If you are ready - a flag in hand, but simply depriving them of opportunities is a mockery of the people. By the way, there are relevant government agencies that should carry out a preliminary assessment of the risks of decisions made, in practice (statistics) - reconciliation of the forecast compliance with the actual data and the established permissible norms, in case of inconsistencies - corrective decisions. The process of public administration, like any other, must be operational and continuous.
        6. 0
          January 22 2013
          this sensation disappears in a week - two, and then you, like the driver, carefully follow the news about changes in the SDA (ZOO) and there is NO feeling of permissiveness ...
      4. Misantrop
        0
        January 10 2013
        Quote: Ustas
        Yes you are just fixated on the crazy idea

        Sorry, but, ships on the aggressiveness of the post, you are fixated. On what specifically is another question ...
      5. zevs379
        +8
        January 10 2013
        Quote: Ustas
        PS: for the supporters of the gunshot, think in the world now there is a lot of anger and possession of weapons will give way to this anger. Stop destroying your own kind.



        Yes, yes - we will remain unarmed, let us nimble-like (with an accent) shoot us as soon as possible.

        Article prohibitions-cop order.
        + for lifting the ban on the death penalty.
        1. +6
          January 11 2013
          Quote: zevs379
          Article prohibitions-cop order.

          It is very possible, although until people break pink glasses (often with their faces) - they will still believe that the police will protect them, and a kind word is better than a pistol.
      6. +3
        January 10 2013
        Quote: Ustas
        Stop destroying your own kind.


        So far, all sorts of ghouls and bandits destroy me such law-abiding citizens. They have something, a bandig, weapons in bulk, but we, normal people, have nothing to oppose them. And I do not want to live by the principle of non-resistance to evil!
      7. +1
        January 11 2013
        Quote: Ustas
        Stop destroying your own kind.
        more, we will destroy only freaks.
      8. 0
        January 13 2013
        This is human nature. Nuclear weapons are capable of destroying the entire planet altogether. However, all countries with any funds first of all try to develop and improve nuclear weapons. Even on your profile picture, a weapon of destruction. Now I see one of the main problems liters of alcohol per capita, drug trafficking.
    3. +3
      January 10 2013
      Quote: Vladimirets
      but the article was not at all impressed, chaotically and some tense arguments

      And very sorry, dear
      Vladimirets,
      which is not impressive and the arguments for you are lightweight. I liked the article, like most of Roslyakov’s works. I don’t think that heaps of corpses from household skirmishes would become a more powerful argument. And the memories of Roslyakov and the hypothetical precision of the reality of 90's these days are quite appropriate, as an argument.
      I am personally the same opponent of free access of trunks to the "masses".
      90 really showed who HU is, when any crazy moron imagined himself Rambo.
      1. +1
        January 10 2013
        Do you think raped women, stolen children, Killed parents are everyday hassles?
        1. Denzel13
          +1
          January 10 2013
          For the uninformed, to whom I also refer you (no offense, but this is a fact, no professional would write something like this), I will inform you that approximately only one (maximum 2) out of 10 REALLY raped (really, because the main shaft is an attempt to withdraw money, but also because a woman who was actually raped very rarely wants to "wash dirty linen in public" - psychologically it is difficult and here the qualities of a competent investigator appear, who can convince the victim to logically complete the case, although it is simply very difficult for the victim to take what happened to people ).
          I don’t even comment on the stolen children. a completely different corpus delicti and it does not in any way correlate with the presence of a firearm in the population. You will never understand in your life that a child is not going somewhere with his parent (especially since in this case the child is somehow interested in criminals), if you have not encountered this before and do not "suffer from excessive suspicion." Only a professional pays attention to behavioral trifles (see above - not you). Murdered parents are really domestic clashes, to which can be attributed the desire to take possession of real estate and the old age of parents (that is, a burden), and the sudden intent to take possession of a pension (since there is nothing to drink) - all this is "everyday life "

          PS Do not try to show your knowledge where you do not have it.
      2. +3
        January 11 2013
        An article as an article - I also have a familiar investigator in the slaughter department - and not from the 90s, but the most current one - to the question of how things are with crime - (this time there will be a quote, not incitement) - blacks cut blacks. (I will not write about nationalities, although he called them.) I somehow don’t want to be without means of self-defense, when they get tired of cutting each other and they switch to us.
        Quote: esaul
        The 90s really showed who HU is, when any crazy moron imagined himself Rambo
        - and where are they now, those beautiful people-look calmly from the monuments.
        1. Denzel13
          +2
          January 11 2013
          Quote: lelikas
          I also have a familiar investigator in the slaughter department - and not from the 90s but the current one


          This is where I "porch" - "the investigator in the homicide department." laughing Have you seen enough "Streets of Broken Lanterns"?
          There is the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which regulates the jurisdiction. Grave and especially grave crimes (who does not know the difference in these concepts, I can explain) are investigated by investigators of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (formerly investigators of the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation). No investigators of "slaughter departments" or the like. did not exist and does not exist. There is an opera in the threat of this focus, which provide operational support for the investigation of such criminal cases. Feel the difference.
          1. 0
            January 11 2013
            Send a handkerchief? If I don’t know what his position is called correctly, that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t exist - for him I’m just a manager - although I won’t completely reprimand my position without hesitation - 10 words, So do you understand or continue to cling to the words? laughing
            Didn't they take you to the "Streets"? - angry you hurt them (joke-joke-joke)
            1. Denzel13
              +3
              January 11 2013
              Why cling to that. hi
              It's just that very often in the middle of ordinary people far from the law enforcement sphere, they judge the specifics of the work of "bodies" on these comedy series. Such
              1. +2
                January 11 2013
                By the way, yes - no one recalls that everything came from the humorous stories of Andrei Kivinov and judging by them about the work of the authorities is not entirely correct.
    4. +8
      January 10 2013
      Quote: Vladimirets
      The question, in general, is controversial, but the article was not at all impressed, the arguments are somehow strained.


      the question is not at all controversial, the author stated everything correctly and 100% right ... all the arguments about the need to own a weapon stem not from objective necessity, but from a man's natural craving for such toys ... I would also, for example, have a pair of good barrels .... BUT !!! .. I worked as an opera ugro for 10 years, practically without handing over the service makarov to the gun, and could reasonably prove that such "toys" a civilian do not need fuck ... I personally did not have to change any once, although there were all legal grounds (and more than once) ... those who yell for selling weapons to the population are completely incompetent people in this area, they themselves do not really understand what it is and why they need it ... all childhood is in the ass playing ...
      1. +1
        January 10 2013
        Why did you drag a pistol for 10 years without handing it over to your weapons if it is not needed. Or we only endanger danger in our operas. Men still have a natural desire for women. How many have raped them. Member is also such a responsibility, and so much trouble with him. Let's castrate everyone!
    5. Misantrop
      +1
      January 10 2013
      Quote: Vladimirets
      some tense arguments

      Exactly. When reading the article, it seems as if tomorrow the entire population will be forcibly distributed around the trunk, while closing the shooting galleries. And they will make you always carry with you. And if we recall at least that the short-barrel, by and large, was banned in the USSR quite recently, under Khrushchev. Prior to this, a service or award trunk was not at all uncommon. And not just the military. And what, blood poured in the river, and at night cannonades rattled? Not at all. With this logic, you can VERY far go. Every day a lot of people die on the roads, let's ban personal vehicles? And if you need to go somewhere, then there is a taxi with a pro driving. And shoot the perpetrators of road accidents, so that it would be disgraceful. And heaven will come right away, right? wink
      A kitchen knife is generally a nightmare invention, they crumbled the people without any count. The solution is simple - to prohibit the sale and withdraw from the population all knives with a blade length of more than 5 cm. And you can buy food already cut or eat food at all, then the kitchens in the houses can be eliminated - immediately the problem of explosions of domestic gas will be solved at the same time ... Well, there and not far from forced preventive castration ... laughing
      1. webdog
        0
        January 10 2013
        Misantrop, your example about a kitchen knife is not legitimate in this comparison. you go to extremes, dear.
        be objective.
        drew attention to such a regularity - MOST of those who, by the nature of their service, were forced to carry military weapons with them, they say here in posts that the population doesn’t need it ... (I fully support)
        another part of the writers, who in most cases in the "counter-strike" are cut - on the contrary for the distribution of guns (not enough).
        Here is such an observation.
        1. Denzel13
          +4
          January 10 2013
          Quote: webdog
          some of the writers who, in most cases, are cut in the counter strike


          At KMB for a couple - three months laughing
          1. webdog
            +2
            January 10 2013
            Quote: Denzel13
            "At KMB for a couple - three months"

            yeah))))))))
        2. Misantrop
          -1
          January 10 2013
          Quote: webdog
          be objective.

          I try to winked
          Quote: webdog
          drew attention to such a regularity - MOST of those who, by the nature of their service, were forced to carry military weapons with them, they say here in posts that the population does not need it ...

          And I, not here, on the site, in life, have a bunch of examples of exactly the opposite plan. Moreover, people who have not parted with weapons for years, even on the beach. And his father knew a man who had recaptured from 1941 until Victory without any weapons at all. Did not use. Military intelligence, he went without a group, with his bare hands (sometimes he took a knife). He did not need hands, too, could be a terrible weapon. And what, everyone before going out into the street proactively handcuffed?
        3. +3
          January 10 2013
          Quote: webdog
          MOST of those who, by the nature of their service, were forced to carry military weapons with them, they say here in posts that the population does not need it ...

          These are the "majority" - former employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who are hooked from the realization that if the normal, law-abiding population is allowed to short-barreled their "exclusivity", a kirdyk will come. I, having carried weapons for many years, do not think that the population does not need them (weapons) .Nozhno, on legal grounds, with mandatory legal and material (materiel part of the weapon), educational program.
        4. +4
          January 10 2013
          Quote: webdog
          MOST of those who, due to their occupation, were forced to carry military weapons with them, they say here in posts that the population does not need it ... (I fully support)

          This majority WORKED MORE DURING THE USSR, then it really wasn’t necessary, now probably we need to quietly accustom to the culture of gun ownership, it doesn’t matter when men are afraid of weapons in the country, and wives rescue their boys from the army, there they are offended by evil uncles , this is already a clinic, for some reason during the war no one even thought of using hazing - they would just shoot for a short time. I think that discipline in the army still needs to be maintained, including the constant wearing of a gun by younger commanders, on the commander in a fight-HE HAS THE RIGHT TO YOU JUST SHOOT, so as not to violate discipline.
        5. Misantrop
          +1
          January 10 2013
          Quote: webdog
          the kitchen knife example is not legitimate in this comparison. you go to extremes, dear.

          And why is it not legitimate? The fact that just with the help of a kitchen knife my classmate almost stabbed his neighbor, a drug addict, in the fool. 8 knife and 2 fractures, miraculously survived. Intersny, that there was NOTHING to be a junkie for this, because "a sick person is not responsible for himself." And a classmate became disabled.
    6. +5
      January 10 2013
      Quote: Vladimirets
      The question, in general, is controversial,

      As the author writes, "... to distribute to everyone on the trunk ..." no one calls, he just distorts the facts. I even suppose that if the acquisition of weapons were now permitted, there would not be too many hunters to acquire them legally, but the very fact that some of the townsfolk may have a legal barrel would discipline and sober many hooligans IMHO ...
  2. +9
    January 10 2013
    At 100% I support the author. The personal opinion of the author, in my opinion, is wrong and supported by examples. I myself spent a lot of time with personal weapons and I can give examples that even trained people do not always follow the rules for handling weapons. One of the theses that they drove into our heads during training, do not get weapons if you do not need to use them. Unfortunately, the presence of weapons is considered by many to be a deterrent. This is not true!
    Personally, I am against the free circulation of weapons.
    1. Misantrop
      0
      January 10 2013
      Quote: urich
      Personally, I am against the free circulation of weapons.

      The whole question is that the free circulation of weapons is in effect right now. And quite broadly. There is NO LEGAL, but free - a shaft. Although the company can arm if desired. I have windows overlooking the rebuilt Tatar seizure for several years, there SUCH cannonades sometimes rattle there at night ... And by no means hunting or firecrackers, the difference is easily determined by ear with minimal experience wink
  3. fenix57
    +16
    January 10 2013
    We can say this: Everything needs skill, training, training (months of training). Good article. And it would be nice to attach the death penalty to property crimes- that will be a deterrent against corruption. hi
    1. +3
      January 10 2013
      Quote: fenix57
      And the death penalty would be very nice to attach to property crimes, that will be a deterrent against corruption.

      I greet you and support such a "good undertaking"
  4. +9
    January 10 2013

    Yes, they are afraid, just all those in power that even a simple "stinker", like them, the "inhabitants of heaven", will have a weighty argument in their hand
    So they sow panic in the media, paper and electronic, day and night.
    As with such, "reasoned", in-abuse, can shoot the same - you damned bastard.
    And, traumatism, this is generally about nothing, that's for sure what should be banned.
    1. +6
      January 10 2013
      Quote: Bulls.
      Yes, they’re afraid they’re just all powerful

      What should they be afraid of, you yourself will shoot each other faster on booze.
      1. +2
        January 10 2013
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        What should they be afraid of, you yourself will shoot each other faster on booze.

        Yes, why, in fact, drunk?
        1. +4
          January 10 2013
          Quote: Bulls.
          Yes, why, in fact, drunk?

          And when was it different?
      2. +4
        January 10 2013
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        What should they be afraid of, you yourself will shoot each other faster on booze.


        Good morning everybody! hi

        A significant case occurred in the USA just the other day.
        American shot her brother posing with a weapon in front of the camera

        WASHINGTON, 9 January. In the United States, a tragedy occurred that again raises the question of the legality of keeping weapons at home by civilians. The 22-year-old resident of Phoenix (Arizona) was accidentally shot dead by his own sister.
        The 19-year-old girl and her 22-year-old brother, who had a lot of drinks at the New Year's party, returned home, where a few more people live besides them. One of them took out a gun, and everyone began to play with him. Brother and sister began to pose as gangsters, posing in front of the camera with weapons in their hands. At some point, the girl pulled the trigger and the gun fired. A bullet hit her brother in the head, he died on the spot.
        Currently, the police identify the owner of the weapon. According to the girl, she did not know that the gun was loaded, transmit online media.
        Read more: http://www.rosbalt.ru/main/2013/01/09/1079290.html

        in principle, a person can be killed in any convenient way, I’m not even talking about means. even with his bare hands, if desired. But a threaded is dangerous. That’s a shorter shot. My opinion is unambiguous. stop A weapon it will shoot sooner or later. IMHO
        1. +3
          January 10 2013
          Quote: Apollon
          A significant case occurred in the USA just the other day.
          American shot her brother posing with a weapon in front of the camera


          So what? A typical case of violation of the rules of storage and handling of weapons!
          Why was the weapon in the hands of a tipsy person?
          Why was there a cartridge in the barrel?
          Why was the weapon removed from the fuse?

          Guys, these are all cases from the "fools themselves" series. Observe the rules for storing weapons and there will be no such stupid deaths!
        2. +2
          January 10 2013
          Quote: Apollon
          19-year-old girl and her 22-year-old brother, who drank heavily

          Well, now type in the search engine "Drunk driver crushed to death ...", and how many results will there be? So what you need to fight: With drunkenness behind the wheel, or with cars. Forbid cars, save the lives of our relatives !!!
        3. 0
          January 10 2013
          2 assholes got smaller. One died, the other planted and banned from having weapons.
      3. s1н7т
        -2
        January 10 2013
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        you yourself will shoot each other faster on booze.

        Yes and x. on them! Natural selection, so to speak)
    2. +3
      January 10 2013
      Quote: Bulls.
      Yes, they are afraid, just all those in power that even a simple "stinker", like them, the "inhabitants of heaven", will have a weighty argument in their hand

      Greetings, Alexey. I always read such "arguments" with a smile. And they are quite often found on the VO forum and on others ....! Why is it so naive to argue that as soon as a mass of people get their trunks in their hands, they will immediately rush together to overthrow those in power, and they dream about this day and night. This is generally the favorite argument of the "confirmation" of the anti-nationality of the regime among the white-ribbon workers laughing
      If you have a son or daughter, and if (hypothetically, of course!) You lost him because of some moron who put the barrel into action, then you would not have such a lightweight argument.
      And if you wish, even now you can join the Union of Hunters, buy "Saiga" and feel almost an American, knowing that you have an "argument".
      1. +4
        January 10 2013
        Quote: esaul
        If you have a son or daughter, and if (hypothetically, of course!) You lost him because of some moron who put the barrel into action, then you would not have such a lightweight argument.

        And now, in your opinion - "morons", "trunks" on their hands do not have? And none of them, sons and daughters, are not killed, so what?
        The irony is that in order for a "moron" to have a weapon, he does not need permission, but the Law is needed, NORMAL PEOPLE, for protection from these very "morons".
        1. +4
          January 10 2013
          Quote: Bulls.
          And now, in your opinion - "morons" do not have "trunks" on their hands?

          What trunks? Killers have, but they have such a job, As for the rest, well, personally, I have not met yet not one frostbitten in the city with a gun barrel.
          1. Misantrop
            +1
            January 10 2013
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            I personally have not yet met one frostbitten in a city with a war trunk.

            Lucky. In Crimea, in the 90s, with the warring Abkhazia and a bunch of "tidbits for cutting" at hand, with the government's open weakness and the then aggressive deportees, almost any bandit on the street without a gun did not appear. There was a LOT of shooting. And then ... just as sharply, the number of firing (but not trunks) decreased. Thugs are not needed by ANYONE, and they solved them themselves, long before the police began to "tighten the screws"
            1. gladiatorakz
              +3
              January 10 2013
              Quote: Misantrop
              Lucky. In Crimea in the 90s,

              In my opinion the gang was called "shoes" (I can be wrong) Was about a month in the Crimea around 93rd. So this gang was doing black there. Every day the news: one was shot, then the other was tortured and then burned, The cops were also attacked. It got to the point that riot police checked the vacationers in sanatoriums and boarding houses. Like a roll call. laughing Everyone was warned not to rest separately, savages. The case that interests us occurred when these shoes attacked the guys from Kiev. They quietly pitched tents, they had 2 or 3 cars. Family So the guys did not begin to read the laws to them, but took refuge behind the cars and answered from several trunks !!! The attackers had wounded. And they were forced to retreat.
              1. Misantrop
                +1
                January 12 2013
                Quote: gladiatorakz
                the gang was called "shoes" (I could be wrong)

                That's just "Shoes" then had nothing to do with it. Then there were many groups only in Simferopol. Shoes, Salem, Greeks, etc. The most amazing thing is that it was these groups that cleaned the city and its environs from the outrages with guns. They dealt with each other extremely harshly, but it came out very rarely. And, most often, if the performer was not from the group, but an outsider. I know what I'm writing about, I knew many of them
            2. Denzel13
              +1
              January 10 2013
              Quote: Misantrop
              In Crimea in the 90s, having at hand a warring Abkhazia


              Ahaha, they made fun. Nothing what, between Abkhazia and the Crimea is still the Russian Federation, the Southern Federal District, in particular the Krasnodar Territory.
              1. Misantrop
                +1
                January 12 2013
                Quote: Denzel13
                Nothing is still between Abkhazia and Crimea ...
                Absolutely nothing. Knew at least three channels for the supply of weapons there. And how many more were there ...
                1. Denzel13
                  +1
                  January 12 2013
                  And, you are in this regard. I didn't understand right away. Well, in the 90s there were orders of magnitude more "illegal" weapons. Now there are many, but not so many.
                  I don’t know how it is in the legislation of Ukraine, but I think that in ours too lenient sanctions are provided for by the Criminal Code for keeping an "illegal". The court practice that has developed in the region where I live is even more "sparing" - the "first-rangers" (who are brought to justice for the first time) are usually not given a real time limit for this.
  5. maloi3326
    0
    January 10 2013
    Article-nonsense. Some super track in the harness and with the trunk reveals 100% of the cases. And if you give us weapons, then we shoot each other .... Pi ... c
    1. +6
      January 10 2013
      Quote: maloi3326
      Pi ... c

      The elderberry garden, and the uncle in Kiev. request This is called logic. laughing
    2. +4
      January 10 2013
      Quote: maloi3326
      And if you give us weapons, then we shoot each other .... Pi ... c

      And what not?
      1. +10
        January 10 2013
        Alexander Romanov "Why Not?" Do you think that we are worse than Moldovans? Do they drink less than us? There are also enough Russians there, if we talk about our exceptional stupidity, in Estonia too. They have short-stems on their hands for a long time and nothing. Before the revolution, weapons were in Russia, also not with seven seals. I think talking about our exceptional stupidity is far-fetched. Millions of hunting rifles and carbines in hand. Well, there are crimes among the owners of weapons, but this is minuscule, I think. In Siberia we rarely have a gun, some have arsenals at all. No one runs around offices with guns and fires at people. In addition to this idiot in Moscow, I have not heard about some terrible crime committed by a man who has a legal weapon in his hands.
        1. +2
          January 10 2013
          Quote: Nagaibak
          Do you think that we are worse than Moldavians? Do they drink less than us? There are also enough Russians there, if we talk about our exceptional stupidity

          You look at Russia, there are constant skirmishes with the Caucasians, and so they will be the first to arm themselves and they will not shoot from injuries anymore. You will be the first to yell at the site, to take out military weapons. In the other case, everyone will have to be armed constantly. In this case, any quarrel can lead to shooting.
          1. Misantrop
            +8
            January 10 2013
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            You look at Russia, there are constant skirmishes with Caucasians, and so they will be the first to arm themselves and will no longer shoot from injuries.
            But then they will shoot not only they. They still have weapons in their hands - what a fool of candy wrappers, almost a third of the former Soviet weapons depots lie on caches there. Or is this news to someone?
          2. Hel
            +7
            January 10 2013
            Caucasians use traumatics more for shooting at weddings, and since they use knives more, apparently so more reliably. And trauma is a surrogate, I would just forbid them - they create the illusion of security and anger criminals more than stop them. sell with the slogan "cut the fly." First of all, you need to change the law on self-defense.
            That would not be any "excess" -napal, then get it in full, up to a lethal outcome. The trouble is that the laws do not work and most importantly there is no inevitable punishment, therefore, they play pranks.
          3. gladiatorakz
            +6
            January 10 2013
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            You look at Russia, there are constant skirmishes with the Caucasians, and so they will be the first to arm themselves and they will not shoot from injuries anymore. You will be the first to yell at the site, to take out military weapons. In the other case, everyone will have to be armed constantly. In this case, any quarrel can lead to shooting.

            In a dog (and a wolf) pack, it is weak, so as not to think that it snaps at its back, opens its stomach and groin for a bite. Shows his subordination.
            Therefore, the logic of the skirmishes with the Caucasians is not ours. Rus - Warrior. And he has no right to allow arrogance in his house.
          4. +10
            January 10 2013
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            You look at Russia, there are constant skirmishes with Caucasians, and so they will be the first to arm themselves and will no longer shoot from injuries


            Alexander, but here I unfortunately do not agree with you
            Rather, it will be the other way around ... The greyhounds of the mountains will be quickly shot and they will become quieter than water and lower than grass (I do not say that I support it), but it seems to me that it will be so.
            And of course the CORNERAL STONE of ALL OF THIS HISTORY IS THE COMPLETE INABILITY OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT BODIES TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE ... And as a result, the great desire of a large part of the people to be able to protect themselves.
            1. webdog
              -4
              January 10 2013
              volkan, so this is what external enemies seek)))
              civil war will begin. To do this, a couple of murders and media hype is enough.
              all will be armed already. only give the command correctly.
              Do you want that? you 90s is not enough?
              and, well, you would say right away that you want a civil war ...
              you have other ideals and goals))))
              Thanks for attention.
              1. +5
                January 10 2013
                Quote: webdog
                civil war will begin.


                What does the extermination of animals (and not necessarily from the Caucasus) have to do with the civil war?
                again, I don’t say that it will be so, but when the question is posed that way ... like the Caucasians then completely lose their fear, then in this interpretation I’m just inclined to think that this is where they will get the wort.
                As for all armed, are you enough of course, why EVERYTHING? In fact, far from all.
                about the little 90s, but why is that an example? He just says that the criminal element was armed to the teeth and there was an outright robbery on the streets of the country, because there was nothing for an ordinary citizen to protect himself.

                Well, let alone the fact that I want a civil war, as they say without comment.

                And the last ... At first glance it may seem (in particular to you, for example) that I stand for the PERMISSION OF WEAPONS. This is not true.
                To be honest, I have not yet decided this question for myself, but I try to reason with an open mind. And as I said in my first post, there are a lot of arguments for both PRO and CON. And quite by the way correct .. and those ... and those ..

                I am only absolutely sure of one thing ... A person must have a means of effectively protecting himself and his family. Maybe not a firearm, but certainly not an injury.
                Let smart people think and come up .. Pistols firing some sort of sleeping darts there .... I don’t know, BUT THE PROTECTIVE SHOULD BE.
                From what is now on the market, practically NOTHING is ineffective, and a combat firearm is already possible, and truth, it’s excuse me like eggs ... in the middle.
              2. -3
                January 10 2013
                If you succumb to external commands so easily, then do not attribute it to others.
            2. +2
              January 11 2013
              Quote: volkan
              .Horse children of the mountains are quickly shot

              Go shoot in the mountains, and you will immediately get incitement to hatred with all that it implies.
          5. +5
            January 10 2013
            Alexander Romanov "You will be the first to yell at the website -Take out military weapons."
            You probably have decided to yell at the site. I have had Saigu since 2002. I will not refuse to have a short barrel. In my city, authorities clearly track gunsmiths. God forbid the delay, weapons will be taken out. Then you get tired of running around the corridors to get it back.
      2. s1н7т
        +2
        January 10 2013
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        And what not?


        Did you have a personal weapon? Many were shot?
        1. +2
          January 10 2013
          Quote: c1n7
          Did you have a personal weapon? Many were shot?

          1. I do not drink.
          2. I don’t need a gun.
          3. I know how to handle weapons and understand what the arming of the people can lead to.
          4 They shot and already quite recently one psycho fired at one of the Moscow offices.
          1. Misantrop
            +5
            January 10 2013
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            I understand what the arming of the people can lead to.

            So far, we see what his DISARMAMENT led to. Before criminals and corrupt power. Posh situation, isn't it?
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            More recently, a nutman fired at one of Moscow’s offices.

            Was the prohibition of storing and carrying the short-barrel greatly prevented him?
          2. +5
            January 10 2013
            Alexander Romanov "4 They have already been shot and quite recently one nutcase started shooting in one of the Moscow offices."
            Interestingly, if his dead colleagues had at least one trunk? Supporters of the prohibition of short barrels do not say this.
          3. s1н7т
            0
            January 12 2013
            Quote: Alexander Romanov

            1. I do not drink.
            2. I don’t need a gun.
            3. I know how to handle weapons and understand what the arming of the people can lead to.
            4 They shot and already very recently one psycho fired at a Moscow office

            Ecstasy wrote laughing
            I asked a specific question, you spread verbiage from EP laughing You never had a personal weapon, you didn’t use it / you didn’t use it, but you already know (for everyone) that this is bad. Put your local authority ... you know where. And be ashamed of getting people out of there!
  6. 77bor1973
    +2
    January 10 2013
    The article put "-" one-sided examples and only about the United States. It is not necessary to develop our police, it must be dispersed as in 1917.
    1. webdog
      +1
      January 10 2013
      77bor1973, "It is not necessary to develop our police, it must be dispersed as in 1917"

      Imagine that five gopniks pinned you in the evening ...
      Do you know what thought will be in your head?
      one only.
      - Lord, please, make the police (police) appear right now as Batman !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      or not?)))
      1. Misantrop
        +7
        January 10 2013
        Quote: webdog
        imagine that in the courtyard in the evening you were pressed by five gopniks

        ... and that’s all in police uniform. Unreal? Not at all. Do you know what kind of fluid there? And their level of professionalism?
      2. 77bor1973
        +4
        January 10 2013
        I have a thought - Lord, please make sure that a gun appears in my hands !!!!
        1. +4
          January 10 2013
          Quote: 77bor1973
          I have a thought - Lord, please make sure that a gun appears in my hands !!!!

          Moreover, teleportation of 1 kg. metal (gun) is easier than 70 kg. live weight (one naked cop). But for the policeman (to cope with the five gopniks) you still have to teleport the gun. laughing
  7. +8
    January 10 2013
    The most rabid opponents of the sale of the short-barrel are the current police officers and deputies, while the most ardent supporters of the possession of the same short-barrel are former employees and deputies "out of work". The first ones are because they already have it, and they don't want to share such a privilege under any circumstances. The latter suddenly became so tolerant because they were deprived of this thieves' privilege, and they know not by hearsay that the first ones will definitely not be able to defend them. Yes
    1. +3
      January 10 2013
      Quote: Castor_ka
      The most rabid opponents of the sale of the short barrel are the current police officers and deputies,

      I do not work and did not work in the police and was not in deputies. Opponents are weapons who understand what weapons are and what they can lead to a fool. There are a lot of examples.
      On roads, rudeness, on the streets, people are an enemy to people, it remains only to distribute trunks. At this level of culture, it won’t lead to good. There are few examples of mass executions, it’s hard to see. Indifference and stupidity in this case should not be blamed on deputies. .
      1. +2
        January 10 2013
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        On the roads, rudeness, on the streets man to man is the enemy, there is only

        Apparently you don’t even look out of the house? What’s the horror! wink
        1. 0
          January 10 2013
          Quote: Castor_ka
          Apparently you don’t even look out of the house?

          Yeah, I’m sitting at home and don’t know what’s what. Maybe enlighten. And then we see you live in different countries.
  8. Arseny_71
    +5
    January 10 2013
    The content article is very similar to the story of a high school student about his exploits in the circle of his comrades.
    1. 0
      January 10 2013
      Quote: Arseny_71
      The content article is very similar to the story of a high school student about his exploits in the circle of his comrades.

      Consciously or not, but the article came out as "stuffing on the dermoventilator". Unfortunately. Since she will bring nothing but a shit request
  9. +15
    January 10 2013
    Of course, I respect the position of the author. But I find in it some inconsistencies.

    1. "They have their own tradition, we have our own ..."
    Take, for example, pre-revolutionary Russia. start with the fact that the militia to the prince, who started a campaign, came armed!

    In Tsarist Russia, shop windows abounded with a variety of weapons ... Nagan or Browning cost 16-20 rubles, which amounted to half the average wage of a worker. Compare crime!

    In the postwar years, a number of decrees and orders of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the RSFSR were issued, mainly relating to changes in the procedure for acquiring weapons. A short period of some liberalization of the attitude towards hunting weapons began. From 1953 to 1959, smooth-bore weapons were on sale (leave without any permits). And again - compare crime!

    Output. It's not about weapons, but about this person in this social environment.

    2. "Armed people die much more than unarmed people ..."

    Craftiness! Or, let's say, an ill-conceived statement! From my own experience, I know how a sober barrel aimed at the forehead is sobering. Unless, of course, your opponent is not a complete moron or scumbag.

    3. "Their children, who can easily find cognac, credit cards and car keys in Dad's secret bottom-hole, will also find a gun - and immediately drag it into the yard and to school ..."

    Again, here the problem is not in weapons, but in man, in his upbringing. Saws, axes, pitchforks and braids - in the barn; kitchen knives and medicine in a home medicine cabinet are no less formidable weapons than the AK-47.

    As a child, I had full access to the hunting rifles of my grandfather and godfather. But, as a person brought up in the Orthodox tradition, I did not even have the idea to "fill up" a physics teacher for a "two" in the magazine.

    The author put a "plus". For honest and open presentation of your opinion. Now it is a great rarity!
    1. +2
      January 10 2013
      Quote: nokki
      Saws, axes, pitchforks and braids - in the barn; kitchen knives and medicine in a home medicine cabinet are no less formidable weapons than the AK-47.
      With medicines from a home medicine cabinet, and even with a pitchfork and knives, do not put as many people as from AK-47, or a simple PM. You can kill with a pillow, but with a gun it is made much easier and more efficient. Sorry, nokki, for morality, but a barrel aimed at the forehead will not make a drunk sober, and if you are drunk with weapons, it will be really bad. The military weapon has one purpose - to kill the enemy, took out the barrel, shoot. If only one demonstration were enough, a toy model would have been enough, but, one must understand, there are no people who want to play with toys. The author touched on a sore subject, if not fatally ill. I also put him a plus. Not weapons guarantee security, but people, their culture, morality, upbringing. This is the main thing, it is necessary to eradicate the causes of crime, a decline in morality, and not to fall to the level of criminals, confusing the right to self-defense with the Lynch court.
      1. Misantrop
        +2
        January 10 2013
        Quote: Per se.
        Not weapons guarantee security, but people, their culture, morality, upbringing.

        Even other medicines are not sold over the counter. Korotkostvol - even more so. This means - testing, training, instilling a culture of circulation and content. This is so bad? At the moment, who has decided to buy a trunk is going to the black market. And he gets it in his hands, just paying the money. Not having any handling skills or ability to practice
        1. +2
          January 10 2013
          Quote: Misantrop
          Korotkostvol - even more so. This means - testing, training, instilling a culture of circulation and content. This is so bad?
          Is it good? Lord, well, why do people not want to scuba dive, jump with a parachute, finally do the same sport shooting, boxing, sambo, give them a combat pistol and the right to use it at their discretion! Where is it from? Swearing youngsters pass by, a gun is needed for courage. Will be, and what, they will see the bandits with machine guns, will pass by again, they will say, give me a machine gun ... The weapon disciplines ... Whom? The bandits did not become more cultured with him. The car also "disciplines" as a means of increased danger, and that there are fewer insolents and scum in the car? You want to give them more trunks and legalize the right to shoot from their foreign cars, for a personal understanding of their safety. Of course, they will find lawyers, they will prove that there was self-defense. With all due respect, Misantrop, I am not like you here. I think you, after all, are not from the arms lobby, and you are not a notorious youth or a lover to get away for your whim, is it in the arming of society that the solution to the problem?
          1. -2
            January 10 2013
            With a return hole in the forehead, it is problematic to look for a lawyer.
          2. Misantrop
            0
            January 12 2013
            Quote: Per se.
            The car also "disciplines" as a means of increased danger, and that there are fewer insolents and scum in the car?
            And take a closer look at these scum. They are almost all - just from those sections of society that in the current situation feel almost gods from permissiveness and impunity. It is precisely because they have both weapons and support from law enforcement agencies and the judicial system. And which at the moment there is nothing to oppose.
            1. Denzel13
              0
              January 12 2013
              Quote: Misantrop
              They are almost all - just from those sections of society that in the current situation feel almost gods from permissiveness and impunity.


              I do not fully agree with this statement. I think this is not related to material well-being and official position. I often observe boorish behavior on the road and drivers of expensive cars, but even more often this happens among young people, on, to put it mildly, "budget" vehicles.
  10. +8
    January 10 2013
    Well, the author draws an interesting oil painting.
    The question is much more complicated.
    Do not give weapons, but introduce the death penalty .... hmm.
    You can write the exact same article about the fact that the death penalty is bullshit.
    Here is straight one to one.
    In fact, this is one of the issues that can’t be solved by the clerk’s.
    And both for and against, you can endlessly cite a lot of reasonable facts.
    Apparently, the principle of least harm should apply here. That is, it will be less harmful to ALLOW OR NO.
    By the way, in the USA they give permission only after the FBI check, maybe we can take this function from the police and give it to the FSB? I do not know.
    But in any case, it is first necessary to ensure a normal legislative framework and the process of extradition and control.
    And before that, definitely not.
    So I think that for a long time it will be at the level of "but things are still there"
  11. logic
    -1
    January 10 2013
    "There is only one way out of this - to strengthen your protective structures, and not degrade to personal barbaric self-defense"
    I agree with the author that "specially trained people" should be engaged in putting things in order.
  12. CCA
    CCA
    +2
    January 10 2013
    Quote: sergey32
    I think the population does not need a short-barrel, there will be more harm. Now it is allowed to keep hunting and self-defense weapons at home, this is enough.
    I agree ... The article is controversial, useful, the author is trying on his own behalf to reveal the opinion of different layers, and therefore it is chaotic - to give people no weapons, but to shoot everyone a lesson in article 105 ...?!?!?!? ...?
  13. +9
    January 10 2013
    Some kind of delusional article ... Only one category of residents in the country has the right to bear arms - SLAVES, everything else is from the evil one ... In this question there may be a question about the ability of the internal affairs bodies to cut off patients by the head, but having money in order to pay. .. But in any case, the question arises that the criminal or the crazy maniac will surely find a trunk for himself, and it would be completely impossible to block the channels of illegal trunks as if the internal affairs department did not work, only the price of the issue. And a simple person before a criminal will be defenseless. In Moldova they didn’t shoot each other, street crime fell many times, and in RUSSIA the people are worse, they will definitely shoot each other. THE CRIMINAL WILL FIND A WAY TO ARRANGE, AND NORMAL CITIZENS WILL BE UNPROTECTED. For all the examples of the author, several examples of the flip side of this problem can be given. Therefore, I simply repeat that only SLAVES who do not have protection rights do not have rights to weapons. And the ability to wield a weapon to the LAZY and SHOULDER (God forbid) HELPLESSNESS BEFORE THE ARMED SCREAM WILL COME!
    1. 0
      January 10 2013
      Quote: wulf66
      Only one category of inhabitants in the country does not have the right to bear arms - SLAVES,

      I don’t have a gun and I don’t feel like SLAVE, I feel like a free man.
      1. +6
        January 10 2013
        Hmmm ... it's not about feelings ... it's about opportunities. The Bolsheviks took away the right to weapons from the people, in the Russian Empire this right was. And about freedom, you will explain to an armed freak, from whom you can’t protect your loved ones and yourself at the same time ... God forbid from such a situation !!!
        1. 0
          January 10 2013
          Quote: wulf66
          Hmm ... it's not about feelings ... it's about opportunities

          Sorry, you went to the ITK website, then I understand your remark about the possibility.
          Quote: wulf66
          You will explain to an armed freak,

          And when the last time you were robbed, armed with a firearm of the House, you will have enough saigi.
          1. +4
            January 10 2013
            For many, a knife is enough. And at the expense of the ITC ... rudeness is applied in the absence of confidence in their own arguments. There will be no discus with you, I do not like to put it mildly unsure of a boor ... You are not interesting to me.
            1. +1
              January 10 2013
              Quote: wulf66
              And at the expense of ITK ... rudeness is applied in the absence of confidence in their own arguments

              Rudeness? Yes, I’m not rude to you, you don’t have enough freedom. Here comes thoughts where you came from.
              With regards to the arguments, but you have not brought one.
              Quote: wulf66
              ..You are not interesting for me.

              Men also do not interest me.
              1. 0
                January 10 2013
                Ugh, God ... I ran into wretchedness ... Eat more fish, it’s good for brains. I apologize, I thought I'm talking to a healthy person.
          2. +3
            January 10 2013
            Sanya, do not argue with those who recall the Russian Empire and mother the Bolsheviks - it may turn out to be Novodvorskaya!
            1. -1
              January 10 2013
              Quote: IRBIS
              - it may turn out to be Novodvorskaya!

              Well then, it’s understandable, I’m talking about freedom. I’ve talked about it. A lady in a psychiatric hospital was lying down more than once, but laughing
            2. +3
              January 10 2013
              Quote: IRBIS
              Sanya, do not argue with those who recall the Russian Empire and mother the Bolsheviks - it may turn out to be Novodvorskaya!


              A colleague, what about those who DO NOT swear the Russian Empire and DO NOT swear the Bolsheviks? wink

              Although the fact of free circulation of weapons in the Republic of Ingushetia is a pretty weighty argument in favor of supporters ALLOW ... do not find?
          3. Hel
            0
            January 10 2013
            But what about being out? Do not go anywhere?
        2. +2
          January 10 2013
          I don’t understand something, I have 5 legal trunks, 3 of them are rifled, what right was taken from you? I never had the idea to buy a short barrel, because in the dashing 90s I had a gas Rex and in no mess he helped me. As for the LCN, they are the same citizens of Russia, give them legal weapons, they will go to their sorties and smile at the police, holding out a permit. Recently I watched a sketch in an arms store. An obvious dushman came to buy a rifled barrel with permission to acquire an injury, he was very upset that he could not buy a combat one, he lamented for a long time that he had been deceived in the permit. Consider also that permission to purchase will be given by local doctors and police in the Caucasus, there will be very few failures.
  14. fenix57
    +2
    January 10 2013
    Before you get permission to the trunk, you must undergo training. Not buy crusts about taking courses, namely unlearn, for the benefit of the future owner of the short trunk.
    1. s1н7т
      0
      January 10 2013
      Quote: fenix57
      Before you get permission for the trunk, you must undergo training

      First you need to allow pistols to those who are already trained - former military men, athletes, etc. I am sure that not everything else will be taken. And then, having gained experience, to allow others. And to enter the candidate's experience - at least one flight within a year after the application for purchase, and - pi-pez! Abnormal drop out)
  15. Warrior
    +11
    January 10 2013
    There is no sense in legalizing short-barrels without changing the law on self-defense. Since anyone who used weapons in 90% will be on the bunk. And of course the honesty and disinterestedness of our officials issuing certificates and permits "is not subject to any doubt."
  16. zambo
    +5
    January 10 2013
    Examples of the author pleased. As for the death penalty: it is high time to return, and in the economic field and in the social, people completely lost fear.
    1. webdog
      +4
      January 10 2013
      zamba, from those who have lost fear in the economic and social spheres it is necessary to return CONFISCATION (article 93 note)
      this will be the case)))
      I think so.
  17. 0
    January 10 2013
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Z7yTvOZl6tM

  18. +6
    January 10 2013
    I will not argue with the participants, there is no need to refer to the amers, who have a hundred-year-old habit of carrying weapons. Our people have a friend culture of behavior. If he receives a weapon, then before everything settles down a lot of blood will be shed. The authorities are afraid of arming the people, if suddenly an armed citizen, offended by the authorities or bourgeois, begins to use it, instead of going to court. So, if you are attacked for the purpose of murder, you will not have time to defend yourself with the trunk, and the barrel will become the prey of the attacker. For 15 years I wore PM under the armpit and on the belt, applied only 1 time, and then in a funny situation, as it turned out. A gun creates only inconvenience, and leaving it in a safe is the same thing without walking with a weapon.
    1. +2
      January 10 2013
      Quote: valokordin
      The authorities are afraid of arming the people, if suddenly an armed citizen, offended by the authorities or bourgeois, begins to use it, instead of going to court.

      There were already cases that officials were shot from shotguns, but the government did not forbid them to have. those who decide whether to allow or prohibit people are not afraid.
  19. +5
    January 10 2013
    I am against the short-barrels. For smooboro-enough hunting weapons. Yes, and under his clothes harder to hide ......
  20. fenix57
    +2
    January 10 2013
    webdog,
    Confiscation is a good thing, but everything will be rewritten to relatives; it is necessary, as in the PRC, execution + confiscation + calculate from relatives for the spent bullet.
    1. webdog
      -1
      January 10 2013
      Fenix57, I apologize, I did not understand how, having calculated from a relative for a spent bullet, he would return the loot copied from relatives to relatives?
      explain more precisely this miraculous mechanism)))
      it seems to you that 93 prim is not enough to wean the loot? in the USSR, this article was enough to take away from everyone who would not be copied. for this there is a CONSEQUENCE, which conducts an inquiry)
      Thank you.
  21. +8
    January 10 2013
    Good morning, friends. At one time he was the owner of a trauma, under the name "Beretta", a serious trunk in appearance, now and then. And this is what I noticed, while I walk without a trunk, there are all kinds of cafes, nightclubs, walks under the moonlight with a girl - everything is normal. When with the barrel, in 8 out of 10 cases, he got into trouble (drunk freaks climb on a rampage, they caught a word, they looked at the girl wrong, pushed, etc.), as a result, a fight or showdown in raised tones with a demonstration of the barrel, and fired into the air a couple of times. When the barrel is not with you, then nothing of the above does not happen, he specially kept statistics - the conclusion: Weapons attract troubles, and when you have a barrel under your arm you become somehow hypersensitive, you react to any little thing, that is, you consciously feel your own superiority. And this is a deceptive delusion, since in a fight or with close contact, it is not realistic to get the barrel. If you didn't cock it in advance and don't hold it in your pocket. Which is a violation and fraught with. Therefore, I got rid of this toy and completely agree with those who do not support the law on firearms.
    1. webdog
      +2
      January 10 2013
      Averias, support you.
      you read my thoughts ... just about to write. but ahead)))
    2. -2
      January 10 2013
      And nobody forces you to buy a COP. This is an opportunity for those who need it. You do not need well, thank God. Just do not deprive others of the right to choose.
      1. +4
        January 10 2013
        Well, yes, apparently all those thugs who arrange shooting from injuries for any reason - they need a barrel like no one else. They are so "weak" and "defenseless" that they are firing in all how much in vain, apparently they sense a threat. Stop lying to yourself. In the bulk, an individual buys a barrel due to the fact that self-esteem is underestimated or ambitions go off scale (and he himself is essentially a coward), as soon as the barrel in his hands takes into the light all the accumulated grievances come out, all the filthiness of the soul and begin to shoot, trying to show how cool he ". Only for some reason from his actions (shooting) innocent people suffer and not "bad" guys and not criminals. And most importantly, in most cases, trauma is used for attack and not defense.
      2. +1
        January 11 2013
        Quote: Dioxsin
        This is an opportunity for those who need

        How not to everyone? But what about the girls who can be raped with their weapons, it’s absolutely necessary that you protect your grandmother from a scumbag with a barrel. For teachers in schools and lyceums, it is MANDATORY, but then suddenly someone will tear the roof off. For children ALL will have bulletproof vests at schools and bulletproof schoolbags . We’ll make as in the USA zones free of weapons and all kinds of people will go there to shoot. So, it turns out that we will have to give out a gun to everyone and sit to shake later. Suddenly, the wife left and he has a lot of stress, he went, he got drunk, he shot. Yes, and the children then we’ll arm ourselves, and then suddenly on the way to school who will meet them.
  22. Owl
    +3
    January 10 2013
    In Russia there are a large number of citizens regularly undergoing medical examination and having the right to use firearms in the performance of their duties, these are military personnel, these are employees of the FSB, FSO and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Why not allow this category of citizens the right to own short-barreled weapons of the PM type (8 rounds for self-defense will be enough and the warehouses will be slightly unloaded) when the conditions of service are fulfilled for more than 5 years (for positions in which official duties are performed with weapons of this type) and when applying for of this right by the commander of the unit, unit where the given citizen is serving. If there are samples in the bulletproof library and with a sufficiently long term of service, in which all the problematic issues are identified, a small number of people will get the right to buy a gun from the state, this will be a test for the possibility or prohibition of such permission, as well as whether it affects to crime rate.
    1. Denzel13
      +2
      January 11 2013
      Quote: Eagle Owl
      In the presence of samples in a bulletproof magazine


      Philip, this moment is very important, but it can only be fulfilled by a “forceful” decision. ”In the 90s, one of my relatives proposed to shoot all the police guns in the region for a bullet sleeve. In his opinion, a significant number of“ ordered ”killings would be revealed and robberies, where weapons were used.The initiative was never given a move (I wonder why? laughing ), although a bit later, a whole organized crime group from police officers was actually revealed.
  23. webdog
    0
    January 10 2013
    Fenix57, I apologize, I did not understand how, having calculated from a relative for a spent bullet, he would return the loot copied from relatives to relatives?
    explain more precisely this wonderful mechanism)))
    it seems to you that 93 prim is not enough to wean the loot? in the USSR, this article was enough to take away from everyone who would not be copied. for this there is a CONSEQUENCE, which conducts an inquiry)
    Thank you.
  24. 0
    January 10 2013
    Some idiocy! Why did my country TRUST me with weapons (up to the BMP) for two years of military service, and after demobilization I became a potential maniac, a murderer? Just bureaucrats are afraid of responsibility. We need a normal law on weapons and its strict implementation.
    1. +8
      January 10 2013
      You do not take into account how many "nannies" stood behind you in the army and controlled your actions with weapons. And you didn't constantly carry ammunition in your pockets. And all of your commanders were personally responsible for your actions. And who will be responsible for the actions of a nerd who imagines himself Rambo, having a barrel? His mom, who doesn't know anything about this?
      1. +1
        January 10 2013
        You probably did not serve in the army. And there was enough ammunition and getting arms into the hands was not difficult. Well, the commanders were personally responsible, so what? They did not control my every move, he trusted. And what about the nerd, with what the hell should he have weapons? I wrote, the normal law and the normal execution of it.
        1. +4
          January 10 2013
          Quote: s545321
          You probably did not serve in the army.

          Avatar with a scary cat -Black takes !!!
          1. -3
            January 10 2013
            It’s good that it’s not a BLACK COAT! And if you served, then you understand perfectly well that it is not the control and personal responsibility of the commanders that keeps them from stupid shooting.
            1. +2
              January 10 2013
              If in your army you could freely get weapons and carry ammunition with you, then this is the complete irresponsibility of the fathers-commanders.
              I have almost three decades of service and the issue of handling weapons and ammunition I do not know on TV programs. And the price of control and responsibility, too.
              Well, and your joke about the "black cloak" is a failed and inappropriate one. You have most likely only seen the Marines in the movies.
              1. +2
                January 10 2013
                Quote: IRBIS
                Well, your joke about the "black cloak" from the category of failed and inappropriate

                Sanya, forget it on you, then every head of the food warehouse thinks he is an expert in arms. negative
                1. +2
                  January 11 2013
                  Generally urgent reconnaissance platoon of the motorized-gun regiment of the KDVO wink
              2. 0
                January 11 2013
                In the training at Knyazevolkonka, mechanics-drivers and gunners-operators were trained for the marines, and there were joint exercises at Iturup, so I had seen enough. And about weapons and BP, heh. At least once a week, live firing at the training ground, plus regimental exercises, division exercises, plus guards, plus PCBs. So the rare days in the hands of no weapons and BP.
          2. +2
            January 10 2013
            Sanya, an eccentric served with Father Makhno! On their tables, pomegranates lay along with pickles. Do not pay attention, there are enough such "servicemen". For two years they become terrible "pros".
            1. 0
              January 11 2013
              It depends on who and how to teach. And in the SA in 1984-1985. still knew how to teach. feel
    2. +6
      January 10 2013
      Quote: s545321
      Some idiocy! Why did my country TRUST me with weapons (up to the BMP) for two years of military service, and after demobilization I became a potential maniac, a murderer?
      You were under oath in the army, you had the right to arms according to the constitution, as a defender of your homeland. Who prevents you from buying at least ten shotguns or hunting ships, there is a law "On weapons" - use it. The truth is that sporting and hunting weapons have a different status, they are by definition not intended to kill a person, and their use in self-defense is commensurate with the use of a stool or a kitchen knife or other improvised means. Military weapons have only one purpose, the legalization of military weapons will automatically legalize their direct purpose. This is the fundamental difference, even the state has no right to execute without trial and investigation, single-handedly determining the degree of guilt.
      1. +4
        January 10 2013
        Well, actually demobilization does not cancel the oath. And the status of weapons is only in your head. The weapon is intended to kill, no matter who, to kill. On this dispute: military weapons, sports, hunting - this is verbiage.
        1. +3
          January 10 2013
          Quote: s545321
          Well, actually demobilization does not cancel the oath.
          It does not cancel, in case of your mobilization, they will again give you weapons and trust military equipment. Any item can become a weapon, for example, you can be killed with a pencil, but you need to be able to. Did you kill yourself if you need a weapon to kill? Well, I shot in the army, before the army I was engaged in sports shooting from a pistol. I don’t want to kill anyone, and I don’t want any sissy that Rambo imagines himself at the mirror, shot my child. I want peace, a calm, happy life. At the same time, you can love and know weapons, I love them, but I don’t want peaceful life to turn into war, because of the greed of merchants and someone’s complexes or whim, because of the state’s non-fulfillment of its direct duties to protect its citizens. I, as a soldier, fulfilled my duty.
          1. +2
            January 10 2013
            And if they don't mobilize? Take the oath? Come, dear guests, do what you want - I was not mobilized. By the way, if you have a weapon, this does not mean that you have to want to kill someone. But if you want your child not to be shot by some "Rimbaud" you have to shoot him first. Tell me, Breivik could have staged a massacre if there were a dozen armed men among his victims, at least with a short-barreled gun. And in an American school, if teachers had weapons?
            1. +1
              January 10 2013
              Quote: s545321
              And if they don’t mobilize?
              If they don’t mobilize (forget), come to the draft board yourself, we will be volunteers. If the teachers had weapons ... You know, it would be better if this ushlepka Breivik and others like him didn’t have weapons, otherwise you would say, but if the children had weapons.
              1. 0
                January 10 2013
                Let's stop doing demagogy, and dwell on the facts. A huge number of weapons already exist in different ear-wraps such as Breivek both in our country and abroad. and if abroad you have the opportunity to purchase weapons for self-defense, then in our country there isn’t.
  25. s1н7т
    +4
    January 10 2013
    There was a time, holding a gun in the nightstand. Youth, tosho laughing , incl. and libations, and "disassembly", but it never occurred to get it and shoot! Or am I the only one ?! What nonsense is it to equate everyone by the worst examples? It is necessary to cultivate responsibility in people - if you want, acquire it, but you will answer in full. And so it should be in everything. You look, and we'll grow wiser laughing
  26. Fox
    +2
    January 10 2013
    ator, brother, 100500 + !!! I subscribe to every word. The real things are described. Do you have any operas by chance?
  27. fenix57
    0
    January 10 2013
    webdog,
    Property is confiscated from the person sentenced to be shot, and after the execution of the sentence, the cost of the bullet is calculated from the relatives of the executed person. Thanks you.
  28. gladiatorakz
    +1
    January 10 2013
    The article is chaotic. Here you and the planes and mammoths and thieves and agriculture. And ready-made conclusions are given: who is for the weapon or the killer or the glupies. smile
    With this logic, kitchen knives must be removed. They are most killed.
    A man MUST be armed !!! Bandits and idlers have long been armed. There is no hope for the cops (the author himself describes how gloriously they thump, and sometimes with criminals) There should not be free sale, but it should be available to a person who does not have problems with PND and UK.
  29. +5
    January 10 2013
    Itself raided with a service card and other things in the Caucasus, now there is no need for excess hemorrhoid. Test article, I support the author in almost everything!
  30. avt
    0
    January 10 2013
    The article is an intellectual delirium which clouds a serious problem. A free citizen is determined by the right to possess weapons and responsibility for his possession and use. And if the employees of state bodies cannot track and regulate the process of trafficking in legal weapons, then to start with a pissed broom they will be forced out of their posts! Even under serfdom, weapons were acquired regardless of belonging to a particular estate. In general, another attempt to instill an inferiority complex in the people.
  31. +5
    January 10 2013
    My answer to the supporters of the legalization of weapons in Russia! So
    in order, and this despite the fact that the US officially legalized rifled short-barreled weapons and the process of tightening in terms of ownership has already begun.

    Mass killings in the USA
    today is 06: 48
    White House proposes measures to change gun ownership
    08.01.2013
    In the American city, because of the threat of shooting, all schools were closed
    01.01.2013
    In the United States, an unknown fired on spectators of the New Year’s salute
    26.12.2012
    In the United States, a firefighter killer killed his sister
    26.12.2012
    In the USA, a man set fire to a house, shot firefighters and committed suicide
    18.12.2012
    Four people died in shooting in Colorado
    16.12.2012
    Alabama killed two gunmen who attack citizens
    13.12.2012
    Police Identify Oregon Shooter
    12.12.2012
    The man who staged a massacre in the United States, committed suicide
    12.12.2012
    Two people died as a result of shooting in the USA
    01.12.2012
    Unknown killed teacher and student at American college
    17.11.2012
    In the United States detained a criminal who planned a massacre in a movie theater
    17.11.2012
    American wanted to shoot at the cinema at the premiere of "Twilight"
    01.11.2012
    Suspects for shooting at Halloween celebrations in USA
    22.10.2012
    Three people died as a result of shooting in the USA
    22.10.2012
    Shooting occurred near a shopping center in Milwaukee.
    19.10.2012
    American fired at a beauty salon
    01.10.2012
    Two people killed in the United States as a result of a shootout in Florida
    29.09.2012
    The number of victims of shooting in the business center of Minneapolis increased to six
    28.09.2012
    A fired man shot his colleagues in the USA: five people were killed
    27.08.2012
    Dismissed American shot a former boss in downtown New York
    24.08.2012
    Two people shot dead in New York's main skyscraper
    14.08.2012
    Two people died while shooting in Texas
    09.08.2012
    In the United States, two high-profile shooting incidents occurred in a few days.

    http://www.rg.ru/sujet/4699/index.html

    legalization supporters, do you want this ?!
    1. 0
      January 10 2013
      Quote: Apollon
      legalization supporters, do you want this ?!

      Apollo proponents of legalization immediately set up minuses, they don’t like this info. It can interfere with a positive decision on the legalization of short barrels.
      We will return the minuses, we will forbid the sables !!!
      1. 0
        January 10 2013
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Apollo proponents of legalization immediately set up minuses, they don’t like this info. It can interfere with a positive decision on the legalization of short barrels.


        I welcome you to Alexander! hi By the way, in Russia officially (unlike some other CIS countries), traumatism is allowed for self-defense, why do we need another firearm, it is not clear ..................! what
        1. Cavas
          +3
          January 10 2013
          Quote: Apollon
          By the way, in Russia officially (unlike some other CIS countries), traumatism is allowed for self-defense, why do we need another firearm, it is not clear ..................!

          The liberals themselves do not understand, but the first will shoot them!
        2. +1
          January 10 2013
          For the slow-witted - traumatism is not effective.
      2. 0
        January 10 2013
        Do you have megalomania? Fortunately, it’s not for you to allow or deny
        1. +1
          January 10 2013
          Quote: Dioxsin
          Do you have megalomania? Fortunately, it’s not for you to allow or deny

          Yes, he became Oberfobersuperpuperfeldmarshal in a month, and now he is broadcasting from the height of his greatness: "Forbid, minus ...".
          1. Cavas
            -1
            January 10 2013
            Quote: revnagan
            and he became oberfobersuperpuperfeldmarshal for a month

            Envy is a bad feeling! laughing
            Lick your lips silently! laughing
            Quote: revnagan
            now it is broadcasting from the height of its greatness: "Let us forbid, we will minus ...".

            And here your inside got out !!! laughing
            Do not judge everyone by yourself! laughing
            1. 0
              January 10 2013
              Quote: Cavas
              And here your inside got out !!! Do not judge everyone by yourself!

              Smiled wink
            2. 0
              January 12 2013
              Cavas
              Envy is a bad feeling!
              Ospodya! Why envy something, Fedya ?! Alcoholic fever delirium like "yeah ...... shim honduran fleet "?
              This, bro, is the clinic! You can’t sit down at the computer in this form!
            3. 0
              January 13 2013
              Quote: Cavas
              Envy is a bad feeling! Lick your lips silently!

              Quote: Cavas
              Envy is a bad feeling! Lick your lips silently!

              Well, actually, I didn't mean you, but another high-ranking "commander"
              .Well, I want to remind you of well-known Russian folk proverbs: in the above privacy of the one who knows whose meat has eaten and about who the hat is on.
        2. +1
          January 10 2013
          Quote: Dioxsin

          Do you have megalomania?

          There is no mania, there is reason!
          Quote: Dioxsin
          Fortunately, it’s not for you to allow or deny

          Those people who make decisions are studying their opinions, including on the Internet, and my post can help in the issue of preventing the resolution of firearms.
    2. +4
      January 10 2013
      In the United States, weapons are sold to everyone who feels like starting with a slingshot ending with a grenade launcher or something else. Nerds there no one eliminates. You will give statistics on deaths from falling from the window. Let's lay balconies and windows with bricks because of some morons. Would you agree? And if law-abiding citizens throw you out of the window? Can it still not provoke with its brand new plastic window? IT IS DANGEROUS!!!
  32. +4
    January 10 2013
    This issue has already been discussed hundreds of times, each side has its own arguments and it is almost impossible to pull a person to its side. Therefore, breaking spears here is completely pointless. We can discuss this issue, but we should refrain from rudeness and rudeness in relation to the opponent - this is simply impolite in the end.

    Now on the topic)))
    I am for permission, but with many conditions and reservations.
    First of all, there is a change in the legislation on the issue of the acquisition, storage and use of weapons, on the issue of self-defense. And until this is done, further conversations are pointless.
  33. +4
    January 10 2013
    It is not the gun itself that kills, but its owner.
    And the policeman for protection and defense to every citizen can not bother.
    That is, weapons, including short-barrels, should be allowed, but not for everyone.
    A person must prove his maturity to own one or another type of civilian weapon. Criteria for this, for example, age, spotless biography, health, recommendations. In our country, however, any transducer with an unhealthy psyche, if only he could not get completely sick with a head or a deaf-mute deaf, could be acquired.
    Yes, and kill more with sticks, kitchen knives and stools. In this case, what is forbidden?
  34. +4
    January 10 2013
    Same. Well, how much is it possible? First you need to create a legislative base, organize archidesha shooting galleries, shooting ranges and courses on skills in handling weapons. And then it’s possible and even necessary to allow a short barrel.
    IMHO.
  35. +2
    January 10 2013
    I noticed one moment:
    The only intelligible argument of supporters of the free proliferation of weapons is "Protect yourself from possible violence"
    That is, in an ordinary situation, it will look something like this: There is an owner of a legal trunk all in white, and then dirty scum lawn trampled. And he is a legal trunk - go away, be ashamed. And scumbags run away with crying.
    The option that each of them has a trunk for free trade from the realm of fantasy? Not in the sense that they bought it and executed it for themselves, although they are scum, they are not complete degenerates, but in the fact that they stole it, took it away, found it. It is easier to get it with arms trade. And not only in a legal way.
    Again, the recommended dirty scum may take into account the fact that the victim probably had weapons. And they can stupidly bang the owner - just in case, so to speak in the worst case, or simply split up and create a cover group so that the white knight can stab in the back according to tradition.
    Violence to stop the violence in my opinion is not an option.
    1. Misantrop
      +8
      January 10 2013
      Quote: Onotolle
      The only intelligible argument of supporters of the free proliferation of weapons is "Protect yourself from possible violence"

      Well, why exaggerate? This impression is created if you glide over the comments and arguments superficially, without trying to comprehend them. The point is just not in the defense itself, it will not even give a personal tank in the barn behind the house.
      The question is in the LAW of a person who is free and does not tarnish himself before the law and citizens for protecting his honor, life and dignity. It is in the RIGHT to choose the MOST what and in what case to apply for this.
      And opponents of this, almost through a post, write that the indicated citizen is an alcoholic, a moron, and it’s impossible to give him anything more difficult than rattles to give, otherwise it’s impossible. His job is to mumble in the stall and pay taxes, but for everything else there are specially trained structures.
      By and large, all disputes on this subject come down to precisely to these two main conflicting opinions
      1. +1
        January 10 2013
        Absolutely accurate definition! good
      2. 0
        January 10 2013
        Well, I was a little ironic, I will not hide :)
        But seriously, let's discuss calmly and in detail - why do you need a combat pistol in a state that does not conduct military operations? What will you do with it and how to use it? Who to shoot at?
        A possible attack by armed bandits on a citizen is a state problem, and it should solve it. Again, you can recall the excesses and flaws in the field, but these excesses and flaws can contribute to getting the weapon in not very clean hands.
        Let's take a look from a slightly different angle - see how many weapons in the world !!! What, does it keep someone from wars? From trying to squeeze territory, resources, money? The effect is just the opposite !!!
        1. Misantrop
          +5
          January 10 2013
          Quote: Onotolle
          But seriously, let's discuss calmly and in detail - why do you need a combat pistol in a state that does not conduct military operations? What will you do with it and how to use it? Who to shoot at?

          Well let's discuss. For what? For more self-control, at least. Having a BATTLE weapon at home, at least you will treat this house and those who live in it at least a little less carelessly. Compare the attitude to alcohol among motorists and those who had no rights for a while. Surely, if you need to drive behind the wheel during the day, then in the morning you won’t get your throat wet.

          Further, the attitude to weapons and the culture of their use are inculcated for YEARS. Today we are seeing a picture when yesterday’s jerk and dunce, having dressed in uniform and forced to pronounce several ritual phrases of the oath, are simultaneously trying to make the pros cool in dealing with what he had no idea and does not have. But on the other hand, he has years of experience in computer shooting, where you can shoot in all directions without any consequences. Yes, he will not protect himself, not like someone. For him, this BATTLE weapon is nothing more than a continuation of yesterday’s rubilov in the game salon.

          And again, I repeat. The point is not even the possibility of protection, but the RIGHT to it. Those. in relation to the country to its citizens. Either as adults who have the right to decide something, or as a dumb cattle who must be led by the hand and wrapped with cotton
        2. +1
          January 10 2013
          A possible attack by bandits is the problem of a citizen, not a state. Hope for the state, but don’t be bad.
    2. webdog
      0
      January 10 2013
      Onotolle, what a syllable, what a text! smile
      you should write books ... (I’m talking jokingly now)
      try, you will succeed.
      Have fun. laughed heartily.
      thanks)))
      1. +1
        January 10 2013
        On health!
        I tried, the reaction is positive smile .
    3. +1
      January 10 2013
      Dear, but your arguments and those of your opponents do not shine with diversity either. For example: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA we all shoot each other ... It seems?
    4. +4
      January 10 2013
      Onotollah,
      Option, not an option, but violence has never ceased by persuasion. The main arguments of the opponents of weapons:
      1. Our people are "stupid" and inadequate, while it is understood that they are not stupid.
      2. The number of crimes will increase, as if it did not go off scale anyway.
      3. It will be easier for criminals to acquire weapons, as if they are now unarmed
      4. Because of any offense, weapons will be used, and do not offend those who are shorter.

      And just an assumption, those who are against or already have it, or have proper protection, or simply did not face violence, there is another category, these are incorrigible optimistic nerds.
      1. 0
        January 10 2013
        Well, you know, I'm generally just trying to advocate permission for free circulation of weapons to clearly and logically justify the need for this action. In terms of exchange of views. With feeling, really, with the arrangement. There will be arguments - there will be counterarguments.
        For now, I can clearly hear "To ensure my own safety", but without theoretical justification, so to speak. Without an indication of whom the weapon will be used, the degree of injury, the situation in which it will be used, etc.
        In the meantime, in terms of exchange of views, allow a couple of thoughts:
        No one in a sober mind drinks medicine - just in case, just because they are on sale in pharmacies.
        For example, no one hits his own whole machine with a hammer (sledgehammer) simply by the fact that he can do it and there is a hammer at hand. I now mean the necessary bodywork, straightening parts in the event of an accident.
        A doctor in a firm mind does not try to cut off an organ for a person for the reason that he can do this.
        And some of our comrades suggest introducing the free circulation of MILITARY weapons, weapons for injuring and death to a person. I think that the reason should be very compelling.
        Well, and here's another - you know, there is such a purely peaceful (almost) thing - a car. They say that they give the right to drive it to sober and adequate people. They say that at the same time these people pass a narcologist and it’s even scary to imagine - they pass exams for the ability to drive by this mechanism. The use of the car is strictly regulated and should occur in designated areas, often specially fenced. And you will not believe these crystal-clear people kill up to 30 thousand people a year with this purely peaceful mechanism !!! In Afghanistan, for the entire time of OKV fighting, about 13 thousand died, and here about 30 thousand per year !!
        I’m afraid to imagine what could happen if every car also has a gun ...
  36. avt
    +2
    January 10 2013
    So, for reference, in those days distant, now almost epic, when Stalin had not yet gained strength, it was allowed to engage in simple English boxing only in the Dynamo sports community. Doesn't it remind you of anything? Prohibition, not work, is the cowardice of the "elite" before the people!
    1. Misantrop
      +8
      January 10 2013
      Quote: avt
      Prohibition, not work, is the cowardice of the "elite" before the people!

      Exactly. But then, with him, even the director of the plant had a service pistol with the right of constant wearing. And only Khrushchev was concerned about the ban on carrying weapons by officers. Under Stalin, being an unarmed officer was nonsense. They wore it openly, in holsters and no one fought hysterically about this. But now, in the midst of democracy, even daggers from fleet officers strive to be selected just in case, not like PM. It is interesting that now for some reason, the AKSU on the side of the traffic police officer does not scare anyone, although few can say good things about these guys ...
      1. avt
        +5
        January 10 2013
        Misantrop ____ Yes, He clearly knew what he was doing, what at least the OSAVIAKHIM-DOSAAF system was worth, and the Voroshilovsky shooter movement 'is not the whining of liberals about the lack of a weapon culture! This is concrete, everyday work with people! And not an image of "patricians" in front of "plebeians"! I repeat once again - all the groans about weapons should be viewed as an attempt to instill an inferiority complex! Remember the well-known intellectual definition of "socks"! Having put entire generations in the category of subhumans in one fell swoop, everyone felt the consequences in full!
      2. +1
        January 10 2013
        Misantrop,
        Your truth.
        My grandfather had a gun in his desk, and an award mauser was hanging on the wall, the cartridges were kept in a cupboard, but we, the children, didn’t even have a thought to take arms, although an uncle of 17 years old and I, 7 years old, knew how to shoot and handle with weapons, but there was a concept hammered from the diapers,weapons are not a toy
      3. +2
        January 10 2013
        Army and navy officers were indeed supposed to carry weapons. But they didn’t take him away because someone was suddenly “afraid” of it. When the frontline officers were mostly replaced by a generation who did not smell gunpowder, the number of cases of using service weapons in domestic showdowns suddenly increased. They shot wives and their lovers, killed their mother-in-law and rude neighbors. They also shot sober, but more often they were drunk. Very often, the weapon was also used by households who "found" the pistol at home, especially children. Increased loss of weapons due to conventional split sloppiness, less often - attacks of bandits. That's when the decision was made - to remove the weapons in the weapon rooms.
        1. Misantrop
          +2
          January 10 2013
          Quote: IRBIS
          That's when the decision was made - to remove the weapons in the weapon rooms.

          Where did you get these tales? Yes, under such tales, weapons were seized. But I grew up in a military family and in a military garrison, a military man in the 4th generation, an officer in the 3rd generation, and in my entire life I have NEVER heard of anything like this either among my relatives or friends. On the other hand, I have heard enough about what yesterday's "botanists-pacifists" are doing with weapons, to whom it fell into the hands of chance and order, and have read enough (in orders for the fleet) to their fill.

          Your logic is strange. The officer needs something necessarily to fight to find out that his military service weapon, it turns out, knows how to shoot. Neither he himself knew about it, nor the elders spoke. Each house has sockets, most of the apartments are not located on the 1st floor and have windows. . Occasionally, accidents occur due to this. And what, it is necessary to overpower everyone in the dugout without lighting?
          1. +3
            January 11 2013
            I have seen enough of these "tales", as strange as it may seem to you, in military garrisons and have heard a lot at hearings of orders from the Ministry of Defense (at weekly meetings). And there is also an archive of orders of the Ministry of Defense. I, at one time, annoyed my commander with this problem (carrying weapons by officers). He advised to visit the secret library and read the orders for a certain period. I surrendered after I was convinced that out of ten orders, three were about the use of weapons. So much for the "bikes".
            And my logic is very simple. Just know sometimes it’s not enough, weapons are even more relevant. The true strength of the weapon and the price of human life is known only to those who with this weapon interrupted this very life.
            1. +1
              January 11 2013
              If a person is appointed to an officer's position who cannot be allowed to carry weapons, then the army is "unhealthy", which, in fact, is not a special secret.
              And the assumption that in peacetime he has nothing to do with a pistol, and in wartime he will instantly "ripen" before it is a naive absurdity.
        2. 0
          January 10 2013
          IRBIS,
          This nonsense was an excuse, and the attempt on Khrushchev was the real reason
  37. +6
    January 10 2013
    Quote: Onotolle
    There is the owner of the legal trunk, all in white, and then dirty scum lawn trampled. And he them legal trunk - go away, be ashamed. And scum with cry run away.

    The example is virtual. But in life, normal people with weapons do not wander around the city. But on a fishing trip with an overnight stay, I take a gun. It’s calmer nowadays. I’m taking to the cottage, far from civilization. Police - the police will not come running in an hour or two. And there, by the way, the gun came in handy. One shot up (and even suddenly laughing ) was sufficient to unconditionally prevent "unauthorized entry". What could I do? Sing the song Zosia, am I calling the policeman now? Fight back with a hook?
    I have a big gun. I don’t go hunting now, I don’t wear it anywhere, but I don’t sell it. Who knows how life goes on? Would you have to defend yourself and your loved ones with something more solid than a traumatic gun? Naturally, I do not want this, but still ...
    1. gladiatorakz
      +5
      January 10 2013
      Quote: Alekseev
      But in life, normal people with weapons do not wander around the city. But on a fishing trip with an overnight stay, I take a gun. It’s calmer nowadays. I’m taking to the cottage, far from civilization. Police - the police will not come running in an hour or two. And there, by the way, the gun came in handy

      I recalled the case. My friend, a colleague, was walking in Kiev and saw a pit bull rushing towards the children on a hill. He took it and calmly overwhelmed him. So in the city it is also necessary.
    2. +2
      January 10 2013
      You know, reality is multifaceted.
      It's good that everything ended just like that. A good example.
      And here is a bad example from my city:
      A disabled person crossed the road at a pedestrian crossing and was not lucky to face a new Land Rover whose driver wanted to drive into a red light. A pedestrian driver sent him that he answered - it’s unknown, but that important one .. he pulled out a traumatism and fired two shots at the disabled person’s chest from a distance less than a meter. If it were not for the corset that supported the spine of the victim in a straight position - that would be ... c.
      ICHS arrived policemen shook hands with the driver and pretended that nothing had happened, and in the ensuing trial, the disabled person was to blame - they say he threatened to kill the poor driver.
      1. +2
        January 10 2013
        Onotollah,
        Here, here, the drivers of land rovers have weapons, and so they do, but why solve it for ordinary mortals, how then should they be rude?
        1. -1
          January 10 2013
          If I understood you correctly, these two needed to arrange a shootout at the intersection?
          And then call reinforcements on both sides by phone?
          1. Misantrop
            +1
            January 10 2013
            Quote: Onotolle
            If I understood you correctly, these two needed to arrange a shootout at the intersection?

            If they were BOTH (or at least one) armed with a LEGAL military weapon, there would be no shootout. 102%
        2. Denzel13
          +1
          January 10 2013
          Quote: Old Rocketman
          land rover drivers


          Is this an expensive and "advanced" car? No offense hi (not that example), but r ... complete.
          1. +2
            January 10 2013
            Denzel13,
            I understand that "g ... complete" is you talking about a land rover?
            For some, it may not be expensive, but a new one at a price corresponds to a b-ear odnushka, which is not achievable for the bulk of the people, and then how many shit-pickers of ours buy for crazy grandmas? So this is just an example, the point is not what, and in who and how
            1. Denzel13
              +2
              January 10 2013
              Igor, no offense and absolutely not as a reflection of the opinion of "raspers" (as you called a certain group of citizens, although I agree with this definition 100%). It's just that I'm used to judging a particular piece of technology, primarily from the point of view of its technical "advanced", reliability and most problem-free operation. That is, the price should correspond to the quality and technical excellence. I understand a little on this issue, therefore such a negative review of this vehicle. I communicate in more detail on these topics on specialized automotive sites.
              1. +2
                January 10 2013
                Denzel13,
                No problem, by the way about its quality, I am like this: same opinions smile
          2. 0
            January 11 2013
            I did not choose the actors, briefly conveyed the story.
            Dead bull and walk can walk on a rusty penny ride.
            I can tell you how the school bus with the children was shelled and the driver was beaten in front of the children by two fuck major on Mercedes.
            Better example?
  38. +6
    January 10 2013
    I am unequivocally FOR the sale of the short barrel.
    This will increase the safety level of my family, my home, me.
    This will raise the level of armament of normal citizens above the level of nomad migrant workers and drug addicts, thugs.

    And all that must be stricter licensing of the population in order to sweep aside the crazies and the "declassified element".
    It is necessary that the district police officer does not give out a "paper" to everyone. To do this, he must only be responsible for his actions.
    It is necessary to license only persons who, without comment for 5 years, owned a smoothbore or traumatism.
    Just like rifled weapons are licensed now.
    Now rifled weapons are strictly licensed.
    They can not be owned by very young and sick on the head.

    So I don’t understand why someone decides for me that I can’t own a weapon because I’m a potential moron and I don’t know how to use it.
    You cannot judge others by yourself.

    From ancient times it was believed that every Russian peasant, Cossack, inhabitant of the steppes or mountaineer should have a house, a horse (or an iron horse), a family and personal weapons.
    To deprive men of this is to turn them into tolerant (God forgive me) disenfranchised timid biorobots, unable to defend their property and the life and dignity of their loved ones.
    1. -3
      January 10 2013
      Are traumas not enough for you?
      Or in order to feel like a normal citizen, you just need to kill a couple or two migrant migrant workers or scumbag addicts?
      From ancient times, Russian men were able to stand up for themselves in hand-to-hand combat and were not timid biorobots, were they?
      1. Misantrop
        +3
        January 10 2013
        Quote: Onotolle
        Are traumas not enough for you?

        It is traumatic that gives rise to a frivolous attitude towards everything that looks like a weapon. That "cool in a foreign car" would hardly have risked shooting a disabled person in the chest from a combat barrel, there would not have been an acquaintance there that would have saved him from a prison term (or the bullets of the relatives of the deceased, let's face it). Moreover, the trauma is UNPredictable in terms of accuracy and efficiency. Further, all legal barrels are taken into account in the bullet case, traumatism - no, paradise for a killer.

        Well, about the current inaccessibility of a firearm ... laughing A couple of years ago in Simferopol began to clean the channel of Salgir within the city. Anyone who has visited knows that the river there is one name. So, the police department still can’t get away from the shock - HUNDREDS of trunks, and a criminal case is set up for everyone. Almost 100% of the hangs, the majority cannot already be called control shooting, so it will not be possible to attach to past or suspended cases ...
        1. +3
          January 10 2013
          Moreover, many law-abiding citizens keep an illegal barrel for self-defense at home, which already makes them illegal. These trunks cannot be taken into account, identified, but they are. In the case of the adoption of normal laws, who needs such a pain in the neck? And you dear pacifists either did not fall under the distribution, or did not see how this happens to others, or those who pass by. Weapons mean not only protecting oneself, but also other citizens. And what kind of argument will you provide when you see how a woman is raped, robbed an old man, beat a kid? Come with your fists to the knife (by the way, this is also illegal), run to the police station? And it’s better to go home and think- Have you ever remembered your face? Then I advise you to run away to another street, turn your face away, and your honor ... And who the hell is she?
      2. 0
        January 10 2013
        With traumatism, go to one place, it will be more useful there.
      3. +3
        January 10 2013
        Have you been beaten by two ambuls in the middle of the street? Just because it seemed to them that you have a hundred rubles? When all the people silently crossed to the other side of the street, and the cops seemed to evaporate. And even if you dawdle. How many any defenders killed right on the bus or at the bus stop. Have you ever beaten an honest man from a group of scum?
      4. +2
        January 10 2013
        Onotollah,
        Yeah, sort of Ilya of Muromets, who alone disperse the crowd of Mongoloids, are you, for an hour, not a storyteller? laughing
        1. -2
          January 10 2013
          The tradition of Russian wall combat on holidays, on weekends, for the sake of entertainment. Not to death of course, there were certain rules.
          And to wave Maslenitsa with fists on Shrovetide is such a holy thing.
          Is it really all fairy tales?
          Nikolay Valuev, Fedor Emelianenko - have you really not heard such names?
          About Ilya Muromets, there was no talk of a crowd of Mongoloids. There was talk about tradition.
          Something like that.
          And I love fairy tales, even compose.
          Sincerely.
          1. gladiatorakz
            +2
            January 10 2013
            Quote: Onotolle
            The tradition of Russian wall battle on holidays, on weekends, for fun

            Yes, this is a very necessary tradition. I am 1000% for rebirth !! People have an adrenaline rush out, exercise, Strengthen the Spirit. For such a fighter and a crowd of Mongoloids afraid. Yes, and from drinking will turn people away in Russia. No matter how anyone says, but a drunken bull is not a WARRIOR.
            But how does this very necessary and important tradition intersect with your position on the ban on weapons? Indeed, at the time of the Wall, just the weapon was on sale.
            Yeah. Here is a little story. During the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese landed troops on Sakhalin, where there were no troops either. So all of them were quickly crushed by local hunters, Cossacks, former convicts. With their weapons. The spiritual people were.
            1. -1
              January 10 2013
              Well, I meant the ability to protect myself with my bare hands and feet.
              Japanese martial art karate, Russian sambo, aglitsky boxing and not only them. Of course, to achieve mastery you need to train.
              But all the same, for example, a broken jaw is treated, but a head shot through completely does not. In the first case, the price of the error is much lower.
              And yet I am not for the ban, but for the use of weapons by those who need it in the service, that is, for a limited turnover.
              1. avt
                -1
                January 10 2013
                Onotollah,
                Quote: Onotolle
                Ну
              2. gladiatorakz
                +2
                January 10 2013
                Quote: Onotolle
                Well, I meant the ability to protect myself with my bare hands and feet.
                Japanese martial art karate, Russian sambo, aglitsky boxing and not only them. Of course, to achieve mastery you need to train.

                Today I decided not to go to training. Pulled his neck. It does not turn right. Question: Am I trained now or not already? For a couple of tipsy men - probably still yes. And for an opponent of my level - a child. I live not at all near the city department. Could some people I’ve been saddened earlier wish me dirty tricks? Easily.

                Quote: Onotolle
                But all the same, for example, a broken jaw is treated, but a head shot through completely does not.

                What about a broken eye? Or both? I know that. Broken neck knees, Adam's apple, whiskey, nape, spines? By the way, I also know a man who lives and lives, and about 5 years ago he was shot in the head. (I understand that this is nonsense, but ...)

                Quote: Onotolle
                and for the use of weapons by those who need it in the service,

                And why the Ministry of Internal Affairs weapons? We have no crime? Or is there? And if so, what is the average speed of arrival of an order at the scene? about an hour at best ...
                Question: what should a decent family man who has been attacked do this hour? Read a book? Or can they collect their guts from the sidewalk?
                We will not even discuss the moral and psychological level of the employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. (Because they are with weapons and terribly touchy belay )
              3. avt
                +2
                January 10 2013
                Onotolle _____ Sorry, something hung, But I wanted to say this. I myself paid tribute to blasphemy and indoctrination, and well I remember how they entered a criminal article and worthy people were planted not even for crimes but for training! And we were told, the gun itself was training. I spoke and I repeat, the right to arms is the definition of a slave from a CITIZEN with all the ensuing RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES regarding CITIZENS and the STATE, the rest is crafty human rights defenders, usually ending with the death of very specific people!
          2. +2
            January 10 2013
            Quote: Onotolle
            The tradition of Russian wall combat on holidays, on weekends, for the sake of entertainment. Not to death of course, there were certain rules.

            But you’ll tell the Gopniks on the rules of the street if they plan to mark you down. I hope they will listen to you.
            1. 0
              January 11 2013
              I think this is not very correct.
              I tell you about a tradition that has deep historical roots, and you tell me about practical application. In my opinion, these are two different things, no?
    2. +1
      January 10 2013
      gorozhanin,
      And, you must add, INCREASE THE CULTURE OF COMMUNICATION
  39. +4
    January 10 2013
    My conclusion: do not give a gun to the author of this opus, Roslyakov! Even if he will ask him very much and present all the necessary documents for this. request
    1. +1
      January 10 2013
      The knife is the same! And then suddenly cut a finger.
  40. +2
    January 10 2013
    Quote: avt
    Even under serfdom, weapons were acquired regardless of belonging to a particular estate.

    Do not write nonsense !!! Where did you read the serfs' right to own weapons? In the lawyers of 1497 or 1550, maybe in the Cathedral Code of 1649?
    You can not read these laws)). In Tsarist Russia, there was no single block of weapons laws. Its possession was regulated by various and often mutually exclusive acts from Peter to Nicholas II. As the government grew stronger, legislation in this area was continually tightened. The beginning of the identification of illegally armed men was laid by Peter I by banning the wearing of "pointed knives". Under Elizabeth, airguns were prohibited from storage, under Catherine, swords and canes. Pistols and revolvers were purchased freely (including purchase by mail) until 1906, when the frosty wind of the first Russian revolution forced the authorities to reconsider their positions on this issue. But with one big "BUT": - WEAPONS COULD HAVE ONLY "RELIABLE". Namely - the nobility, civil servants, landowners, merchants (large), service people, of course, etc. That is, it is the HAVING CLASS and the persons guarding its interests. The "lower class" was not supposed to have weapons. Not to mention declassed items. By the beginning of the 23th century, a huge number of laws appeared in the Russian Empire. A need arose for their systematization, which Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky began to carry out. His activities were reflected in the legislation on weapons. So on March 1839, XNUMX, the "Rural police charter for state peasants" was imperially approved, which prohibited the constant carrying of weapons (an exception was made for catching wild animals and hunting), as well as shooting in villages, in houses, in yards, on the streets and squares. As they say, feel the difference between the state and the serf peasant)).
    For reference ... a vast class of government had a history completely separate from the owner (serf) peasants. Under Peter I, it was formed from black-faced peasants and ladle-mates of the Russian North, single-palace workers and former service people (spearmen, reitars, dragoons, soldiers, Cossacks, gunners, gatherers, etc.) of the Russian southeast, Yasash Tatars, arable Siberian peasants, etc.
    Well, about the very legislation on weapons. It should be remembered that in addition to the official laws published in the "Complete Collection of Laws", "Code of Laws", etc., there were secret circulars intended for governor generals and governors. According to which restrictions were imposed on the possession of weapons in certain areas, even for landowners - it was allowed to have only hunting weapons, and for state peasants in general 1 hunting trunk for 10 yards)))) Decree of the Sovereign Emperor on July 5, 1845. About any serfs, even no talk.
  41. Ingvald_Bueny
    -2
    January 10 2013
    A competent article in favor of refusal to legalize "short-barreled" with convincing arguments. The author's well-reasoned conclusions are definitely a plus.
    It is also necessary to raise the issue of banning self-loading smooth-bore and rifled hunting weapons and traumatic weapons such as "OSA" and "PM-T". This weapon, which is in the hands of the population, is increasingly turning into a weapon of crime. Some citizens buy hunting "machines" for the sake of courage, use it while intoxicated or as arguments in case of a dispute with neighbors. The owners of "traumatics" are a little behind them, one of their fun is shooting dogs in a vacant lot, shooting at drunk citizens, shooting bottles in the yard, while they do not even think that they can harm other people.
    Unfortunately, Russian people lost the culture of using weapons after the 50s of the 100th century. And now the question should not just be about the legalization or prohibition of short-barreled rifled weapons, a ban on rifled and smooth-bore self-loading weapons is needed, until the state, with the help of legislation and legal agitation, revives the culture of handling weapons, in my opinion these processes will take at least 150-XNUMX years old. Until this time, there is no need for legalization and free carrying of short-barreled rifled weapons.
    1. 0
      January 10 2013
      it is necessary to ban injuries and gas workers. most perceive them as a toy. there will be no toys - there will be no killings by negligence
      give out weapons because Now in the Armed Forces after the medical commission with certificates from the FSB, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the Moscow Region.
    2. 0
      January 10 2013
      Or maybe we’ll prohibit living at all. About 100-150 years. According to you, we lost culture in 62 years, and for some reason it is necessary to restore it 2 times longer, it doesn’t. In the worst case, the same.
  42. +6
    January 10 2013
    In the 90s, officers were forbidden to go outside in uniform, but they were not allowed to carry weapons continuously. How many people died because they did not yield to the crowd of scum.
    Why they entrust the hands of a tank, a rocket, and they cannot entrust a pistol.
    I believe that officers can be allowed a pistol for continuous wear
  43. -3
    January 10 2013
    I agree with the author, sensibly and with examples, speaks of the troubles that await us when legalizing short-barreled weapons. All the cries about the need for legalization come either from psychopaths, who immediately start firing from the purchased gun, establishing justice, or from interested people involved in the world of the arms business.
    All this resembles a periodically arising discussion about the need to provide each passenger with a parachute. How to use, where to jump, what to pull for - a separate song, the main thing is give.
    So with pistols - give, then we will deal.
    The phrase was amused by the townspeople about a Russian peasant who, without a pistol, seems to be ... not a peasant at all? I immediately thought - but what about this with their dignity now, as they still upheld?
    Wonderful things are your Lord
    1. +2
      January 10 2013
      The dignity of any state is earned by politicians, and if it does not help, it is won by arms. So it is with people. There are different situations in which people fall by chance. Or maybe we’ll ban the army. Weakness provokes violence. Take a look at the kindergarten: strong kids beat the weak. Take a look at world politics: a weak Russia provoked the United States to foment war. And notice, again with a weak adversary.
  44. fenix57
    +1
    January 10 2013
    In Moscow, a group of Chechens fired at a police car. Here is the use for you. Just the topic, is not it. website rbc.ru hi
    1. -1
      January 10 2013
      And what weapon used legally acquired?
    2. +1
      January 10 2013
      And of course, the Chechens had registered weapons, with bullets and shells under lock and key in the cartridge case. And the weapons permit was in the right pocket of every Chechen.
  45. +3
    January 10 2013
    from all the above, he concluded: it is necessary to change the law and strictly observe, and the inevitability of punishment should prevail regardless of ranks and regalia. Otherwise, cases have become more frequent lately, and you will agree with me when traveling to an oncoming lane or speeding, not to mention driving around a traffic jam, are found everywhere. you have to start from this, with yourself. and then give weapons permission. By the way, I own a smooth-bore and rifled, and I won’t refuse a pistol if allowed.
  46. +1
    January 10 2013
    Quote: Ingvald_Bueny
    a ban on rifled and smooth-bore self-loading weapons is needed until the state, through legislation and legal agitation, revives the culture of handling weapons


    This is not even nonsense, but the final diagnosis of the "wise gudgeon."
    1. Ingvald_Bueny
      -1
      January 10 2013
      Quote: Understudy
      This is not even nonsense, but the final diagnosis of the "wise gudgeon."

      What are you offering?
      1. 0
        January 10 2013
        Ingvald_Bueny,
        You don’t even catch it?
        -You politely offered to shut up, sorry, I just deciphered laughing
  47. Director
    +4
    January 10 2013
    I agree with the author, regarding the death penalty. Now in our country neither the deputy nor the minister are afraid of anything. All] can be bought except The bullets to which you are sentenced. And as for the armed beast, it’s also true, after legalization they will immediately use it with ease against us, and they will prove that you yourself attacked,
    because the whole diaspora will be in witnesses. And if you really want the trunk, you can bury the trunk in the garden.
    1. -1
      January 10 2013
      The death penalty can be replaced by hard labor. And upbringing, and compensation to the injured party and no one needs to be killed. If a person was convicted by mistake, you can always rehabilitate and compensate.
      1. +1
        January 10 2013
        Quote: Aliv
        replace hard labor

        After sentencing, 10-15 years of a maratorium without the right of pardon, then ...
  48. 0
    January 10 2013
    I wonder how people talk about the Russian mentality. What we are not like. Are we more hot-tempered than Caucasians? Are we dumber than Americans? Do we drink more French? We cannot be held responsible for our actions. Why is it fashionable in Russia to burn everything Russian, including the Russians themselves? I know a lot of people who have weapons at home. I have never heard that someone is proving something to a neighbor by waving a gun.
  49. +4
    January 10 2013
    I believe that every law-abiding citizen should have the right to buy weapons (if he wants). And he doesn’t want to - no one will be captive.

    And if you follow the logic of the author of the article, then matches and lighters need to be banned (so that children and inadequate citizens) do not burn everything around. In the meantime, they will produce fire by friction - they will probably want to burn everything.
    I wonder why we do not have mass arson? After all, you can buy matches at every corner. Our people are inadequate.

    The author ponders from his belfry (and God forbid him to remain in this belfry), because a change of the belfry (will begin to advocate for short-barrels) will mean that something irreparable happened, and he (or his relatives) did not have weapons with him.

    That's just why the author of the article denies us the right ourselves to prevent the irreparable?
    1. +1
      January 10 2013
      Quote: tan0472
      I wonder why we do not have mass arson?

      I beg you, a bunch of information, google laziness.
      1. +1
        January 10 2013
        Quote: Onotolle
        I beg you, a bunch of information, google laziness.

        Why google? I looked out the window, and there - a glow. These are our inadequate people (having matches on hand) all set fire and set on fire. Oh, I already smell the burning. This is visible to the neighbors (top, bottom, left, right) something lit up. How else? wassat They have matches ...
        1. gladiatorakz
          +1
          January 10 2013
          Quote: tan0472
          Why google? I looked out the window, and there - a glow. These are our inadequate people (having matches on hand) all set fire and set on fire. Oh, I already smell the burning. This is visible to the neighbors (top, bottom, left, right) something lit up. How else? They have matches ...

          I’ll go to the neighbors, I’ll ask for matches ... laughing
  50. asf32wesdg
    0
    January 10 2013
    It just can't be !!! The FSB has created this http://sho.rtlink.de/FS62Am database about any resident of Russia, Ukraine and other CIS countries. Really was really scared
    there are a lot of interesting things about me (addresses, phone numbers, even my photos of a different nature) - I wonder where they dug up this. In general, there are good sides - this
    Information can be deleted from the site.
    I advise you to hurry, you never know how to fumble there ...
    1. +4
      January 10 2013
      It just can't be !!!

      Here is a post that unequivocally proves the need for a gunshot, if it were available for personal use, such posts would be smaller.
      negative
  51. 0
    January 10 2013
    Very good article, Alexander!
    A bit of exaggeration about the “capital punishment”, there is room for life imprisonment.
    And such professional operas as your Lilo should not only be set as an example, but also young people should be allowed to learn from him, to adopt along with information and experience
  52. +6
    January 10 2013
    Great article!! And the most important idea here is not even about weapons, but about the complete lack of strategic planning for the development of our society on the part of the state: solving problems as they arise, and this is at best, at worst - an artificial creation of a problem and a “heroic” solution through lobbying interests of certain persons.
    I am touched by TV programs in which we are taught how to choose products in stores (why SES, Rospotrebnadzor, etc.), medicines in pharmacies (“beware of counterfeits!” but how do I know??) ... They shift the responsibility onto us for everything: I either bought it or ate it (where were you looking?). And here also: why do they shift responsibility for our own safety onto us??? I'm afraid of weapons, who will protect me?
    Quote: “Another argument for the free sale of firearms: the police will not protect us anyway! But if you dance with this logic - and the court will not judge, the deputies will not save you - we must sell both judge's robes and deputy mandates to everyone! And disappear into the primitive system, where everyone is his own plowman, and healer, and defender, and judge." The article says it correctly!!
  53. +6
    January 10 2013
    In addition to his main hobby, a certain Napoleon Bonaparte was also known in his empire (and France under him, of course, was an empire for some time. Not for long) as a magnificent judge, bordering on art. He judged harshly, but fairly and quickly, which delighted everyone and, I think, was absolutely to the point. So one day he tried the commandant who surrendered the fortress to the enemy. Something like this dialogue took place between them:
    - Why was the fortress surrendered?
    - I had 17 reasons for this, sir.
    - I'm listening
    - First of all, I didn’t have gunpowder...
    - Justified! Next thing!
    The dispute about allowing or banning short-barreled guns has absolutely nothing to do with... short-barreled guns. The conversation here is not about pistols at all. This can be judged at least by the composition of people in different camps (well, and by the number of almost masterpiece bots, on which a huge number of green bastards were clearly spent, and who, by some quirk of fate, are strictly in the same camp).
    The question is whether the best qualities of ordinary people should be trusted. Let's expand the question for study. That is, should people develop, strive for the best examples, raise themselves and their country. Do people need to root for society, should they look for the shoulder of friends in order to build their future together. This is one side.
    Or - people are inherently scum. They don’t have to develop anything in themselves; they don’t need any collectivism, a common cause or a shared future. Every person, since he had the meanness to be born, should be given the opportunity to live his life, best in the interests of those who Know Best. In order for this bastard, who strives to kill, rape and steal, to still live out the time allotted to him and not harm others like him, he should be squeezed by laws, round-the-clock surveillance and psychocoercion, because the person himself uses every scrap of completely unnecessary freedom for him is for evil and only for evil.
    Besides, all people are children. They must be protected (that is, kept with their hands tied back, dressed in beautiful lace).
    This is what they are arguing about here once again. To make a more precise determination, I advise you to think about which side the Democrats, who furiously treat everyone they reach, are on...
    1. gladiatorakz
      +1
      January 10 2013
      Tricky, but on topic. Digged deep, Misha!!! laughing
    2. Misantrop
      +4
      January 10 2013
      Mikhail3,
      +1000. The same individuals in one topic call for developing the country, dealing with the dominance of punks and Nazis, improving the culture of communication, and in another... they are discussing what else to BAN this. Moreover, with arguments that everyone around is always drunk and stupid in life, and also cowardly in addition. For the simple reason that he doesn’t want to go out alone against a crowd of stoned scum...
  54. Krasnoyarsk
    0
    January 10 2013
    I am for the legalization of short-barreled guns, talk about bandits and other asocial elements is ridiculous, since they will get the gun anyway. To obtain a short-barreled gun, you must complete a training course, have no criminal record, etc. Corruption in this matter will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
    1. 0
      January 10 2013
      Quote: Krasnoyarets
      Corruption in this matter will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

      Yes, you are a utopian, my friend. At the rate we are fighting corruption, our people will shoot each other 10 times. Or is it now a problem to buy an injury? Bypassing all laws and commissions, you can use the Internet to find out how many proposals you can get for obtaining a permit. And this is not a lethal weapon (which I highly doubt, which is why, by the way, I refused the injury). And on a firearm, those who want to chop the dough will grow like mushrooms after the rain. And you say - the fight against corruption. Utopia.
  55. 0
    January 10 2013
    I propose this development of events: As a result, the law on firearms was adopted, the people armed themselves. A robbery takes place in a dark alley, a la Gop-Stop. The victim got scared and forgot that he had a pistol. In short, they robbed me. The victim, of course, calls the police, they say, help me, I was robbed. And the police responded, dear fellow - what do you need a gun for, you should have put these bandits-raiders with their guns in the dirt with their faces in the mud. What do you want from us now, you bought the gun for this and advocated for the adoption of the law - well, get it. As they say, what they fought for....
    1. gladiatorakz
      0
      January 10 2013
      Quote: Averias
      I propose this development of events: As a result, the law on firearms was adopted, the people armed themselves. A robbery takes place in a dark alley, a la Gop-Stop. The victim got scared and forgot that he had a pistol. In short, they robbed me. The victim, of course, calls the police, they say, help me, I was robbed. And the police responded, dear fellow - what do you need a gun for, you should have put these bandits-raiders with their guns in the dirt with their faces in the mud. What do you want from us now, you bought the gun for this and advocated for the adoption of the law - well, get it. As they say, what they fought for....

      Now they just say: Don’t bother walking along dark streets....
      Why do we even need someone to say what? Chatterboxes will always find something to say in order to shift the blame onto someone else.
    2. Dmitry 77
      +1
      January 11 2013
      If we take your situation, a person with a weapon should be mentally prepared to change it, and be able to use it, but he should not, as you say, “put his face on the floor”; he is not the police. Sometimes it is enough to demonstrate your superiority (in this case, skill and determination) to stop all claims to your health and property.
  56. Misantrop
    0
    January 10 2013
    Quote: Averias
    I propose this development of events: As a result, a law on firearms was adopted,

    But to prevent this from happening, IMHO it is necessary:
    1. Revise the Criminal Code in terms of the right to use weapons by both police officers and armed law-abiding citizens. And now, in pursuit of safety, law enforcement agencies are trying to ban shooting.
    2. Anyone wishing to purchase a short barrel must:
    - keep it in good working order,
    - be able to use it correctly. For those who did not serve (or who managed to forget) - courses like KMB with passing tests.
    3. Anyone carrying a weapon MUST support law enforcement agencies. And the responsibility for avoiding it.

    Then even someone who has a gun and a permit will not carry it around with them idle. And on the streets at once there will be many times more of those who are able and must maintain this order. And the state will not only not lose from this, but will also earn money. And there’s no need to talk about the idiot who bought a gun because he didn’t know how to use it. The accompanying hemorrhoids with such a purchase are quite enough to assess the seriousness of such an acquisition. Well, what about: “What will he be able to do after the KMB?” the answer is simple: exactly as much as a patrolman sent to maintain law and order on the street can. Or an ordinary traffic policeman with an AKSU under his arm on the road
  57. +7
    January 10 2013
    Just thirty years ago, the topic of owning a short-barreled gun was not an issue at all. And why? What, there were no fights or showdowns? It’s just that even for carrying a knife you could get a real prison sentence. How many tough horsemen are in prison for carrying a knife now? "Cops" - answer. I think zero. The ordinary citizen is now face to face with the bandits, with the bandits in uniform (which is even worse), with the vile government that created this situation. So someone consoles himself with the hope that he will be able to defend himself and restore justice with the help of a firearm. In a normal state, this is done by government officials. And we have “mento police” - the number of which will soon exceed the number of the army and navy. “This is also a typical case. Back in the gangster 90s, I was with three operas at some kind of drinking party in their department, and they decided to show me, for the sake of impression, living bandits. We took some more vodka and went to some floating den in the Stroginsky floodplain, where some ghouls greeted us in slight shock, but sat down to drink with us. My friends soon got completely drunk, quarreled among themselves, and one of them punched the other in the face. It was winter, they came out onto the slippery shore and let's fight arms and legs, falling every now and then, in front of the Urla, who was very pleased with such a spectacle. I shouted “It’s good to disgrace the organs!” "I rushed to separate them - and flew off face-first into the snow. Another companion of ours somehow separated everyone, dragged us into the car, and the sergeant took us around the house." How many malfeasance are there here? The author did not notice them. Such "cops" will not protect us.
    I don’t know the answer to the question: “To have or not to have a short barrel?” I think it is more important to adopt normal laws on self-defense and restore order in law enforcement agencies. What about weapons? What normal guy doesn't like guns? But that's another topic.
  58. +1
    January 10 2013
    There are weapons that are a responsibility and weapons that are a toy, roughly speaking. This is in relation to weapons. You will not see a weapon as a liability from its owner. And they won’t give it to you. And they won’t take him to a drinking party. Because they understand how this could end. And a weapon-toy is something you want to show off to everyone and pull it out at every convenient and inconvenient occasion. Yes, the friends and relatives themselves will take away the weapons from such a person. for they will cease their relationship with him out of harm’s way.
  59. +4
    January 10 2013
    Quote: There was a mammoth
    And we have “mento police” - the number of which will soon exceed the number of the army and navy.

    And I mean the same thing. There are so many of them that you can comb the taiga, but they don’t even really patrol the streets. So there is no faith in the article.
    And to say that Russians outshine each other because they are drunk is not just stupidity, but actually an insult. In our region, the people have Kalash rifles, not to mention pistols. And no one outdid anyone. And, by the way, we have a huge diaspora of Ingush in the region, right in those areas where there is no particular government. And there is peace and tranquility everywhere! No national problems. Probably because everyone knows that the people through one have an AK-47 (and not even a pistol)
    So there is no need to make a blizzard about stupid, drunken Russians who are only thinking about how to kill their neighbor. We are a people who organize themselves very quickly.
    We don't need a million Mento cops. WE need weapons. We'll figure it out ourselves.
  60. Dmitry 77
    +3
    January 10 2013
    I am for the legalization of short-barreled guns: Firstly, because there are situations when even your physical training is not able to help you (I speak from my own experience). Secondly, the chances of survival for someone against whom a weapon of this caliber was used are higher than if they were shot at from a 12-caliber smoothbore (for example, in the USA such weapons are called “street sweepers”; the chances of surviving when hit from a short distance from such a weapon tend to to zero). Thirdly, the level of our law and order is so low that I think we have the right to defend ourselves (well, which of you hasn’t been stopped at a “go-stop”, and if you don’t know how to behave in such a situation, at best you will end up in the red money, but they can even send you to the hospital). But even someone who has a weapon must understand what a terrible responsibility lies on him, how one pull of the trigger can divide life into “before” and “after.”
  61. +4
    January 11 2013
    Are traumas not enough for you?
    Or ≠Trauma is not enough for you?
    Or in order to feel like a normal citizen, you just need to kill a couple or two migrant migrant workers or scumbag addicts?
    From ancient times, Russian men were able to stand up for themselves in hand-to-hand combat and were not timid biorobots, were they?


    Onotole, I really have some trauma. And not the weakest - the second "Wasp". I take it with me when I go to walk my dogs in the forest. I have good dogs, a wild pack of dogs has no chance against them, but the wounds still remain and they take a long time to heal. That's why I shoot away wild dogs with an upward shot.
    Wild dogs, unlike scumbag people, are smart animals. When they hear a shot, they immediately understand what’s what and retreat.
    And against scumbags with bats under their belts, trauma equipment is useless. And for some reason it seems to me that you are well aware of this.

    As for hand-to-hand combat.
    You have to be objective. I don’t know about you, but I’m not a terminator, no matter how much I might like it. And I’m already many years old - the reaction and speed of movements are not the same. My daughter already fences much better than me.
    So, most likely, I won’t be able to stand up against two young big guys with bats. Most likely they will disfigure me.
    A short barrel would even out the chances.
    And why say outright stupidity like: “in order to feel like a normal citizen, you just need to kill a couple of nomadic guest workers or scumbag drug addicts.” Why are you doing this?

    And then, in addition to protecting our own lives, we also have something that is sacred to us and awaits our protection. Look what the juvenile bastard is doing, for example, now even the priests of the Russian Orthodox Church are proposing to arm themselves.

    The introduction of juvenile justice brought even the leadership of the Russian Church to the idea of ​​actually arming themselves. “For example, not long ago I was a strong opponent of handing out firearms to the people,” Archpriest Dimitry Smirnov, head of the Synodal Department of the Russian Orthodox Church for interaction with the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement Agencies, admitted in an interview with the Radonezh radio station. “But in light of the new changes, that our state is integrating into the European process and that our children will be taken away from us here, it would be nice to have a gun at home when they come to take the children away,” added Fr. Dimitri.
    In his opinion, a gun could stop the unjust removal of children from the family: “Some official will decide to take the children away, and the person will think that it is unfair. How to fight injustice? There are two ways. There is a legal one. And there is an illegal one. This is, of course, an illegal way. But if they attack what is most sacred!” And here, as they say, you can’t argue: either give your child to unknown uncles and aunts, or be ready to stand up for, without exaggeration, the life of your loved one (life in the understanding of the Russian, and not some kind of “market” civilization) being.
    Read in full: http://www.km.ru/v-rossii/2013/01/10/deti/701216-yuvenalnaya-yustitsiya-zastavil
    a-dazhe-tserkov-vzyatsya-za-pistolet


    Here everyone decides for himself. I understand what Archpriest Dmitry is talking about and support him.
    1. +3
      January 11 2013
      So I'm talking about the same thing. I say right away, if God forbid, some kind of juvenile bastard comes to my house with the theme “help my family” - I will shoot. The meaning of life is family and children. And if some nit suddenly gets stuck in its snout, I’ll kill it. How our grandfathers killed the Gestapo. And for this you need weapons. That's why I'm for weapons. If they start killing juvenile nits to protect families and children, the juveniles will stop twitching. They will return to the west with their tail between their legs.
      1. 0
        January 11 2013
        I am not going to justify YuYu. But I want to note that these are civil servants.
        Are you going to use legal weapons to kill civil servants on duty? Did I understand you correctly?
        How will this help you and your children?
        In this situation, they will most likely call special forces, and you may be killed during the assault, and if you survive, they will be closed seriously and for a long time.
        Or maybe YU leaders are just waiting for such an incident to add power to their employees.
        I can suggest using intellect, and, in extreme cases, fists, gas, a baton, dogs, against YU employees.
        Why does the reaction to difficulties immediately become individual aggression: if I buy a weapon, I will kill? And it doesn’t matter who the YU employees are, drunken bigwigs, gopniks, drug addicts, migrant workers, dogs11
        Why, dear forum members, are you so easy to control by pressing on your most basic instincts, awakening aggression and directing you in the right direction? Why is the only solution to the security problem is to hole up in your home and bristle with weapons?
        Why has it never been said - guys, let's think, unite and solve the problem together? COMMONLY, the whole world.
        In the end, they will hand over one by one, no matter what weapons are in the arsenals. Mammoths were driven and beaten by the whole tribe, and not individually. And problems in Rus' have long been solved by the whole world.
        Something like this, sorry for the uneven handwriting.
        1. gladiatorakz
          +2
          January 11 2013
          Quote: Onotolle
          I am not going to justify YuYu. But I want to note that these are civil servants.
          Are you going to use legal weapons to kill civil servants on duty? Did I understand you correctly?

          And not allowed either. If any creature reaches out to children, then even a civil servant, even the Pope, there will be a couple of extra holes in him.
          Quote: Onotolle
          In the end, they will hand over one by one, no matter what weapons are in the arsenals. Mammoths were driven and beaten by the whole tribe, and not individually. And problems in Rus' have long been solved by the whole world.

          And no one is against reasonable associations. Very much in favor.
        2. Misantrop
          0
          January 11 2013
          Quote: Onotolle
          I am not going to justify YuYu. But I want to note that these are civil servants.

          Exactly. There are more and more civil servants who are ready to destroy their own people for a penny and a beautiful document. Precisely with the participation of patented democrats. And these “civil servants” are ONLY afraid of bullets; their owners will buy everything else. Fighting against them with authorized weapons is not a solution, they will crush them. But here, IMHO, it’s like a case of a rabid dog. It's not her fault that she got sick, but that's not a reason to let her bite everyone.
          1. Denzel13
            +2
            January 11 2013
            Quote: Misantrop
            SUCH civil servants who are ready to destroy their own people for a penny and a beautiful document


            Not long ago I spoke with a young man and he told me the following:

            “I’m collecting money to get a job at the BEP (this is a normal message fool ), but once I get a job I’ll make a lot of money.” belay Characterizes the system well, doesn’t it?
    2. 0
      January 11 2013
      I didn’t mean to offend you, apparently I misunderstood your message.
      I'm sorry.
  62. Misantrop
    +3
    January 11 2013
    Dmitry 77,
    Quote: Dmitry 77
    how one pull of the trigger can divide life into “before” and “after.”

    And non-pressure is increasingly divided into “lived” and “buried”...
    1. Region65
      +2
      January 11 2013
      yes yes, it’s better to be judged by 12 people I don’t know than to be buried by close people :)))
  63. Andrey58
    +1
    January 11 2013
    This already sounds like a bad joke, but:

    Washington. January 10. INTERFAX.RU - At least two people were injured as a result of a shooting at a school in the American town of Taft (California), CNN channel reports.

    According to first reports, the shooter has been detained. Police are currently inspecting the school building.

    See the original material at http://www.interfax.ru/society/news.asp?id=284586


    Either the media is watching so closely, or shootings in American schools are becoming a tradition in the new year.
  64. Misantrop
    +6
    January 11 2013
    It’s interesting to see how ambassadors in favor of legalizing short-barreled guns are growing silent minuses winked Everyone, as in life, walks past those in need of help, turning their faces away and whispering to themselves: “This is why there is the Ministry of Emergency Situations and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, they are paid money for this...” wink
    1. 0
      January 11 2013
      This happened to me. They were hammering in the middle of the main street in the regional city. The people silently crossed to the other side of the street. The cops have disappeared. I was lucky, they caught some good gopniks, but they only broke their nose.
  65. Region65
    +2
    January 11 2013
    however, many supporters of the legalization of military guns propose the stupidest thing - they say that permission for such weapons should be issued only to those who served in the army :) however, I know a lot of people without an army behind them, but who are excellent with weapons, at the same time, many of my acquaintances served in the end In the 90s and early 00s in the army they held a machine gun in their hands once every two years when they took the oath :)))) stupid proposal, and it turns out that those who did not serve in the army do not have the right to life and the right to self-defense? :)))))) but what about constitutional equality? :))) in short, the more discussions on this topic on TV and in the press, the more idiots join its discussion. (I'm not talking about those present here, I'm talking about those who make decisions and have influence on these decisions)
    1. Misantrop
      0
      January 11 2013
      Quote: Region65
      those who did not serve in the army do not have the right to life and the right to self-defense?

      Not at all. In this case, we are not talking about law, but about ability to use what you want to buy. Both for their own safety and those around them
      1. Region65
        0
        January 12 2013
        and what am I talking about - introduce compulsory courses - for God's sake) let them introduce it, I'm talking about something else - one has urgent service behind him, but just because he held a machine gun in his hands while taking the oath, he didn't know how to use it? no, I didn’t)))) and the words of those same little people are talking about exactly this - you served - you have a permit (without checking whether you can or can’t :)))) but didn’t serve - yes, you’re a three-time master of sports in shooting - horseradish not permission for you)))
    2. +1
      January 13 2013
      People are not equal because this is impossible. People will never be equal, because a worker will never be equal to a slacker at least. "Constitutional equality" is simply a lie invented to gather votes from parasites. There’s no way to call anyone anywhere, it’s a burden for the state, a nightmare for law enforcement, and then there’s the voter!
      If you want a weapon, earn it. Too lazy to strain - don't bother. Your views do not coincide with those of the state and your convictions do not allow you to join the army? Which bath brooms will you use to give you weapons? Registering and checking for special registration is another matter... Are you sick, disabled, medically recognized as a white ticket? Can you wield a weapon? Prove it, yes, under difficult conditions... and in the meantime, the commission will check whether to put you in prison for evading service (after which, on a clear day, you will not see a weapon). The state decided not to draft you (let’s say you worked in such conditions that the army is somehow easier, we have such places and such jobs) - a commission, but tougher. Passed - get it.
      The right to guns - this should be privilege. A privilege, a source of pride and a serious responsibility, not something to be given away to anyone you please. There should be a system of all-Russian competitions in military-applied all-around... eh... I was daydreaming about something, yes...
  66. +7
    January 11 2013
    Quote: gorozhanin
    As for hand-to-hand combat.
    You have to be objective. I don’t know about you, but I’m not a terminator, no matter how much I might like it. And I’m already many years old - the reaction and speed of movements are not the same. My daughter already fences much better than me.
    So, most likely, I won’t be able to stand up against two young big guys with bats. Most likely they will disfigure me.
    A short barrel would even out the chances.

    My student, who graduated from Ryazan, said ten years ago - Buy a concealed carry knife, at least there is some chance.
    I am for having the right, and then it’s up to me to weigh and decide.
  67. Owl
    +2
    January 11 2013
    cowards are afraid of guns
    1. +1
      January 11 2013
      More pacifists. We had one pacifist. Gorbachev M.S. I have achieved peace throughout the world. Is not it?
  68. 0
    January 11 2013
    Svezhachok, sir
    http://lenta.ru/news/2013/01/10/shooting/
  69. +1
    January 11 2013
    But this is complete nonsense. Armed people die far more often than unarmed people; Knowing that a policeman is armed does not stop a bandit from attacking him with the same gun or knife.


    In general, after this paragraph, you didn’t have to read the article :)

    Of course, the criminal is running away from the policeman, because he is unarmed and weak, and then he’ll hit him in the face

    I don’t like articles from a series that can be described in a few words - we would... and foreign experience in this matter is not appropriate for us

    And the fact that the author forgets about our specifics from the category of reducing the number of police officers (with the Medvedev reform, now I not only don’t see police officers on the streets, but even traffic cops, driving around the city all day), many settlements do not have their own local police officers (more precisely they are assigned to several), there are generally remote places where only former criminals live, etc.

    A citizen must be able to respond to an armed criminal. I don’t like the option that the author offers between the lines - first a crime will be committed against you, and then you go to the police and they catch the bandit and the court imprison him far and long. This will not make it any easier for the victim.
  70. Beltar
    0
    January 11 2013
    The main factor is correctly noted: “weapons will definitely be used.” And if a man drunk to the point of delirium tremens usually doesn’t think of grabbing an ordinary kitchen knife, then it’s easy to get the barrel. And if it’s a Kalash, then it’s lights out.
    1. +6
      January 11 2013
      People are divided into two types. Some are ready to put up with being robbed, killed, raped. If only it didn't get worse. Until they are touched, the well-fed will not bring reason to the hungry. Others are not ready to put up with the current state of affairs. And they just want to fight for the right to live in peace. The right to self-defense is a right given to any living creature by nature. Every animal is armed with something. A tiger has claws and teeth - quite adequate weapons to resist the same tiger. A man will not trample with his fist against an armed bandit. The right to self-defense was taken away from the Russian people. Even if you punch an armed bandit and he dies, you will be slapped with exceeding self-defense. Why was our God-given right taken away? He who does not want to defend himself may not defend himself. Good luck to them!
      1. Beltar
        +1
        January 11 2013
        If you hit him with your fist and he dies, then perhaps you won’t even be charged, unless the examination says that the cause of death was your blow (such heroes are rare), but if you shoot, then yes, there will be questions. And more. And in principle, from the point of view of the law, your statement that you were defending yourself is absolutely equivalent to the assumption that you are lying.

        If the barrel is already looking at you, then trying to get yours may end badly for you. It's so obvious that it's astounding that gun fans are incapable of understanding it. The first attacker always has the advantage, and this is always a bandit.
  71. Edgar
    +2
    January 11 2013
    Following the author’s logic, the first thing that needs to be banned and “not allowed” are 3 things: a kitchen knife, a hammer, an ax, and you MUST pour vodka into plastic bottles (otherwise glass bottles are very good at trepanning skulls)! These are the most deadly items. The fact that in the Russian Federation it is still prohibited for citizens to own short-barreled firearms is, in my opinion, explained by several things - the authorities’ disdain for their fellow citizens (“what else - cattle weapons?”), the dominance of ineffective law enforcement agencies (“how is this? I’m a cop with a gun?” and some kind of civilian too?”) and one more thing - every (note - EVERY) dictatorship is afraid of the armed people like fire.
    on this site there is an article I really liked about weapons -
    http://topwar.ru/21472-my-ne-raby-raby-ne-my.html
  72. 0
    January 11 2013
    Russian Orthodox Church - for weapons! Paradoxical but true! From this perspective, the topic of weapons appeared to border on the topic of juvenile justice.

    Archpriest Dimitry Smirnov - it is necessary to protect the family with weapons

    Read in detail here: http://warfiles.ru/show-21363-protoierey-dimitriy-smirnov-zaschischat-semyu-nado
    -pri-pomoschi-oruzhiya.html
    1. 0
      January 13 2013
      For centuries, Orthodox monasteries have been the centers of defense of Rus', centers for training strong fighters and developed military science for the Motherland. It would be strange for Russian Shield to have a different opinion...
  73. +1
    January 11 2013
    One of the commentators has already noted an interesting trait of some people - to decide for others. Let me expand my thought a little.
    If a store has a weapon on sale for free, this does not mean that everyone will immediately rush to buy it. Anyone who believes that karate will allow him not to get tangled in a sword belt or confuse the safety with the trigger - but for God's sake, no one is forcing him to risk his life and buy a pistol. Go unarmed (especially since the majority in America buy weapons with a storage permit for the purpose of protecting the house, and not to wander around the street with them.)
    But why can someone decide for me what is best for me? Are you sure that you are smarter than me? Do you know more? Can you do more? Do you know what I have to do? So maybe you can live your life for me? And what’s most interesting is that this is the “decisive” majority and lives “for the whole country.” And the rest survive.
  74. +2
    January 12 2013
    It is necessary to heal society, and not give it weapons in the hope that it will heal and cleanse itself. What is happening in our schools, humiliating beatings and all this being filmed on camera, there will also be executions like the American ones
    1. 0
      January 13 2013
      WHO will treat? You are prohibiting society. He can’t treat himself, he can’t cleanse himself. Are you taking it? Since you are much smarter, stronger, morally purer, and so on and so forth... Why do I just unbearably want (and I suspect that the majority will do so) to send you somewhere far away on a wide, well-known road?
  75. Misantrop
    +2
    January 12 2013
    Quote: smsk
    What is happening in our schools, humiliating beatings and all this being filmed on camera, there will also be executions like the American ones

    All these beatings with filming occur only because the worst that these frostbitten people can face for such entertainment can be described as “minor troubles.” In the event of shooting, the consequences will come immediately and VERY severe. You can’t “cover up” THIS anymore... For the herd to turn around, it is not at all necessary to beat everyone, a few will be enough. So here, all the chaos comes from impunity. There will be a STRONG reaction - the chaos will end VERY quickly

    Well, as for “treating society”, illness is treated with medicines, not persuasion
    1. +1
      January 12 2013
      Let it be treated with medicines, but this should be done by the state and the structures responsible for this, and not by the people themselves. With our corruption, anyone can get a weapon without any certificates or permits.
    2. 0
      January 12 2013
      Misantrop, it’s interesting to talk with you, but I’ll still complement you - the best treatment is prevention.
      1. 0
        January 13 2013
        Quote: Onotolle
        the best treatment is prevention.

        So, the patient brushed his teeth in the morning and evening, used dental floss, but... still caries... What's next?
  76. Misantrop
    +1
    January 12 2013
    Quote: smsk
    this should be done by the state and the structures responsible for this, and not by the people themselves

    And how many more decades will we have to wait until they get around to doing this? And we still have to somehow live until that happy time...
  77. 0
    January 12 2013




    No comments so to speak.
    1. +2
      January 12 2013
      According to the latest video. They drove around everything in silence. They didn't even ask. Is the driver alive? Interesting. The driver who shot has already been jailed. Or, as always, no corpus delicti was found. Or maybe there is no body, no statement, no problem.
  78. +3
    January 12 2013
    The question was raised here that there are opponents of weapons, there are those who want to get them, but there are no specific proposals. In my opinion, allowing traumatization was a big mistake. This is not a weapon, but it kills, it is not effective in self-defense, and it does not leave evidence. My suggestion is the following. Create a law allowing you to protect your property, your loved ones and yourself personally. Any home invasion should be considered aggression. Allow to keep short-barreled rifles at home under the same conditions as long-barreled ones. Namely: in a safe away from children and those who might steal it. Wearing should only be considered on an individual basis. With a convincing justification, a reference from work, a conversation with a psychiatrist, with the signatures of neighbors and the local police officer. And only at a time when the owner may actually be in danger (for example, he comes home late from work). Some people just have a sporting interest. Therefore, carrying weapons to the shooting range (shooting range) must be carried out according to the rules provided for hunting weapons. Violation of the rules of ownership should lead to the deprivation and confiscation of weapons for a certain period. After which the procedure for obtaining a license is the same as for a new applicant (with all certificates, interviews, signatures and mandatory training, with passing an exam). And then, after several years, it will be possible to return to the discussion of permission to carry.
  79. 0
    January 13 2013
    You know, but in one particular case, having a weapon in your hand saved you. And, speaking of statistics, people kill with kitchen knives much more often. In China, you already have to get permission from the police to buy a kitchen knife. And what is the article about - that the one who has it (weapon) is against it, so that someone else has it. (for information, crime already has it) My opinion, and the article is a plus.
  80. -1
    January 14 2013
    I completely agree with the author. The article is excellent. I would like to advise arms supporters to analyze the events in their beloved America, where the issue of limiting sales is being raised. If a gun hangs on the stage by the last act it will shoot for sure + don’t forget the law of meanness. And we need it even and these troubles))
  81. -1
    January 14 2013
    The author defends the point of view of the security forces. It will be more difficult for them to work if people are allowed to have guns. But if the state fulfilled its function of protecting law and order, then people would not have the desire to purchase weapons for self-defense. If people feel protected, then the question of armed self-defense does not arise. In the USSR there was somehow no mass desire to “arm for self-defense.”

    In addition, there is another point of view: how to raise a warrior without teaching him how to use weapons? (Teaching how to disassemble and assemble a machine gun and letting it fire once is not gun ownership.) How can we demand from men that they be warriors and defenders, but at the same time say that giving them weapons is dangerous? If a man is required to be a defender, then he has the right to choose his own “tool” to perform the functions of a defender.

    Of course, this “tool” can also be mastery of hand-to-hand combat. But each case requires its own “protection tool”. What would happen in Sagra if there wasn’t a single gun in the entire village? Would hand-to-hand combat help them a lot?
  82. Lerooy74
    0
    January 14 2013
    Article TKPAYA....!!! The arguments are hysterically sucked out of thin air. again at the next aFtor, Russians are always drunk, cross-eyed downs. the population has hundreds of thousands of guns in their hands (hunters-security-cops) And where are the massacres? There will be 2-3 incidents with trauma throughout the country, and they throw a hysteria, as if there are a dozen victims on the street in every city. Idiocy.... Who says anywhere that short-barreled guns will be distributed EVERYWHERE and to EVERYONE from right to left? Damn, at least read the conditions that the supporters of the permit propose. Everything is quite tough there. and if the trunk falls into the wrong hands, then it is necessary to ask the OWNER. Or who gave him THIS gun (permission).
  83. terp 50
    0
    January 14 2013
    ...still, in some (and most of them) cases the most convincing argument - grenade. The crowd (even from 2) has its own psychology, and the situation that has arisen can be resolved only by using double the rigidity and force, perhaps. and cruelty.
  84. 0
    January 16 2013
    a normal article, “there are pros and cons to owning a gun.” Well, it depends on anyone, I know for sure that in my city in 2009-2012, 416 illegal guns were seized, a population of only 30 thousand residents, I’m sure there are still some on hand several times more. Who will give me a guarantee that after I hit the subjects who try to take my mobile phone on the street, they won’t wait for me near the house with some kind of “kramultuk” or they won’t start breaking into my house?) As they call her now, the police won’t save me at this moment, I rarely see her at all.
    I want to be able to at least somehow defend myself in this case, but under our legislation this is, alas, impossible)))
    1. 0
      January 16 2013
      Quote: Marssik
      Or won’t they start breaking into my house?

      Buy a short-barreled 12-gauge semi-automatic. From "Hammer" for example. This tool is quite sufficient for home defense, and in this respect it is much better than a pistol.
  85. 0
    January 16 2013
    This type of unit “for the home, for the family” is quite enough. In close combat, no pistol can compare. With, of course, a little experience in ownership, it’s not like it will be diligently collecting dust in a weapons cabinet until the hour “X”.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"