Military Review

Panties Society

146
American view of personal weapon


Panties SocietyOUR SOCIETY, perhaps, like no other in stories humanity professes the principle of respect for the individual. Our entire popular culture, from fashion magazines to cinema, extols the special value of the individual and encourages originality, judgment and freedom of self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevailing opinion that helping others leads to an increase in the feeling of “self-esteem”; that if a person appreciates himself, he will be happy, successful and, what is not very clear, a responsible member of society.

And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and self-worth, the media and authorities continually advise us that in the face of a deadly threat we should not resist. If a robber attacked you, you just need to give him everything he wants. When it comes to rape, the discussion boils down to talking about how a woman can change her behavior to reduce the risk of rape, and discussing various ridiculous “remedies” that she can carry with her, like a police whistle, apartment keys, a baton, or a terrifying weapon like a cell phone. How is this possible in principle? How can a person who appreciates his personality so highly not respond to an insult, which of course is the offense of a criminal on his freedom, life and property? How can a person, who considers the freedom of self-determination to be the basis of his dignity, agree that he is forcibly deprived of this very self-determination? How can he quietly, calmly, with dignity, abandon resistance? Of course, it is assumed that there is no contradiction. The advice “not to resist criminal encroachment, but simply to give away your belongings” is based on the statement that life is the highest value, and that no property is worth life. Let us leave aside the outrageousness of the assumption that a criminal posing a mortal threat should be treated as if there is some new social contract between the criminal and the victim: "I will not touch you or kill you if you give me what I want" . For many years, feminists have explained to people that rape is connected not so much with satisfying the sexual needs of the abuser as with his desire to subjugate and destroy the identity of the victim. Probably, someone should inform the authorities and the media that the abduction and seizure of people, robbery and armed attack is an encroachment not so much on property, as on a person. A crime is not only a complete denial of the social contract, but also violence against the person and the dignity of the victim. If human dignity consists in the fact that he is a creature endowed with reason and moral principles, voluntarily entering into free interaction with others, then a crime is always an encroachment on human dignity. In fact, crime is an act of enslavement. Your wallet, wallet, or car can not cost more than your life, but your dignity can; and if it is not worth fighting for, then you can hardly have it at all.

Gift of life

Although it is difficult for modern man to imagine this, there was once a universal conviction that human life is a gift from God. And not to protect her in moments of danger means to despise this gift. The person who does this is a coward, he violates his obligations to society.

In one sermon that was pronounced in 1747 in Philadelphia, the refusal to resist the criminal was equated with the sin of suicide: The Lord commanded him to strive to prolong his days, and nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself. " Today, “cowardice,” “self-respect,” and “self-esteem” have largely disappeared from public debate. Instead of "dignity" we are offered "high self-esteem."

"Respect for oneself" implies that a person has moral principles, according to which he evaluates himself. Self-esteem simply measures how satisfied a person is with himself.

Previously, the measure of “dignity” was the self-control and strength of the human spirit in the face of the vicissitudes of life and the hostility of others. Now, ideas of dignity have changed. “Dignity” requires that we avoid any conflicts, because our precious personality is probably not able to survive even verbal abuse. This is vivid evidence of the weakness of the character of modern man and his spiritual emptiness. It is impossible to talk about the problem of crime, not to mention the moral responsibility of the victim. The criminals are outraged because we, law-abiding citizens, indulge them, look for excuses for them, obey them. We allow and encourage crime because we don’t resist here-and-now criminals. Crime is growing, not because we lack prisons, judges and prosecutors are too lenient, and the police initiative is shackled by absurd instructions. The reason - in the attitude of society to crime. We are a society of cowards and wimps.

While you were lucky

In the 1991 year, when the Minister of Justice and Attorney General Richard Thornberg published the FBI's annual crime statistics data, he said that a person is more likely to become a victim of a violent crime than be involved in a car accident. Despite this, most people readily believe that the existence of the police exempt them from responsibility in the sense that they do not need to take care of self-defense. The police, however, are not personal bodyguards. Their role is to curb crime by the fact of their existence and to catch criminals after committing a crime. The courts have repeatedly confirmed that it is not the duty of the police to protect a particular citizen from a specific crime. You cannot sue the police for not protecting you from criminals. The police really terrify the criminals, so the criminals do not commit crimes where there are police officers. Unfortunately, it follows from this that if you become the object of attention of criminals, the police will not be around. If you are the victim of a robbery or rape, you will find it very difficult to call the police while you are being robbed, even if you have a cell phone with you. However, you may be interested to know how much time passes on average before the appearance of the police. According to Ministry of Justice statistics for 1991, the police managed to arrive at the scene of a violent crime no later than in 5 minutes, only in 28% of all calls from all calls. ”The view that police protection is a kind of service that can be ordered by phone and get it in a timely manner, erroneously. As the gun owners say: “Call the police, an ambulance and a pizza delivery. Look who will come first! "Many people" solve "for themselves the problem of crime, convincing themselves that they live, work and move only in" safe places. "And every time they are greatly surprised when it turns out that criminals do not care rules and do not care about imaginary boundaries.If you still realize that a crime can happen anywhere and anytime, and if you realize that you can be crippled or fatally injured in some seconds, then perhaps you should think about whether to entrust your baa safety in the wrong hands.

Power and responsibility

Is your life worth protecting?

If so, who is responsible for this? If you think that the police, you are not only wrong - because the courts think otherwise - you are morally questionable. How can you require another person to risk their own lives to protect yours? Because it is his job and he gets paid for it? Because your life is priceless, and the cop salary is $ 30 000 per year? If you yourself think that it is wrong to repel a criminal’s attack with a lethal weapon, how can you demand from another person to do it for you? Do you believe that you are not allowed to defend yourself, because the police are more qualified, because they are professionals, and you are an unhappy “lover”? Come on! It is the same as believing that only concert pianists have the right to play the piano and only professional athletes are allowed to play sports. What are the special qualities of the police, which we do not have, mere mortals? Anyone who values ​​his life and takes responsibility for his family and his loved ones should take care of the ways of resistance and be able to respond if he and his family are in mortal danger. Such a person will never rely solely on others in matters of personal safety or consider that it is enough to behave cautiously and avoid “dangerous places”. Let's face it: a responsible person must have a weapon and be able to handle it in order to protect themselves when confronted with a mortal danger.

Article reprinted with abbreviations. The basic meaning, with reference to our reality, is preserved.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.samooborona.ru/Shaider.html
146 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. smel
    smel 23 March 2013 07: 09
    +1
    Nonsense ... There is nothing more valuable than life. Just like the values ​​of dignity and honor. But the protection of life, in my opinion, lies with each individual individually (do not commit evil and dangerous acts, behave everywhere, including in society, and do not endanger yourself and others, etc.) and on society (conditions life, the creation of a security system, the adoption of normal laws, the formation of a culture of communication in society ...). But the police are just part of the system. So it is considered one-sided and not correct. Although what to expect from educated Americans. Weak they always kick
    1. Mihaylo Tishayshiy
      Mihaylo Tishayshiy 23 March 2013 09: 00
      21
      I myself hate Americans, but there are two things that I like with them: "country" - American country music and their attitude to weapons (God created some people big and strong, and others small and weak, but Samuel Colt came and all level). You can find fault with some of the author's words, but in general I agree with him.
      1. yak69
        yak69 23 March 2013 14: 23
        +8
        In the original it sounds something like this: "" God created man, and Colt equalized him in rights. " I am convinced that we, ordinary citizens, have the right to arms. only the current government is afraid of this as the devil of incense. With weapons on hand, such as Yeltsman, Chubais and Gaidar would not have been driving for a long time. The authorities are afraid of their own people.
        And as regards cowardice, I can say this --- I’m not a Muscovite myself, but I live in Moscow and when on the playground in the courtyard there are idiots, plump, yell and swear (day or night) for all the time I live, not a single root and didn’t pacify them. I go out and put things in order. Once I had to go out with a hard drive (it was loaded with a rubber shot, but the combat ones were in my pocket). A shot in the air was enough to cool the whole company. From my own experience I know that when an adversary sees your readiness to kill, as a rule, the ardor fades greatly. And even frostbitten fans feel it.
        So, fighting spirit is good, but the gun doesn’t hurt.
        1. Ustas
          Ustas 24 March 2013 08: 13
          0
          Quote: yak69
          when on the playground in the yard there are nonsense, plump, yell and swear (day or night) for all the time I live, not a single root came out and calmed them down. I go out and put things in order. Once I had to go out with a hard drive (it was loaded with a rubber shot, but the combat ones were in my pocket). A shot in the air was enough to cool the whole company.


          The Tver court in Moscow condemned a student who shot two young people in a Moscow metro with a traumatic gun for three years in prison. The court believes that Aleksandra Lotkova shot when nothing threatened her life. In addition, her actions were recognized as impudent. The court did not find any reliable facts that one of the victims had a knife.
          why the wrestler Rasul Mirzaev, who killed the student, remained at large, receiving only suspended sentences, and the student who defended her friends was sentenced to three years in prison.

          http://www.zagolovki.ru/daytheme/lotkova/22Mar2013

          PS: While the courts will stand on the side of the hooligans, then at least possess at least not possess weapons, there is only one end: some in the grave, others in prison.
    2. radio operator
      23 March 2013 10: 03
      15
      Quote: smel
      Nonsense ... There is nothing more valuable than life.

      For a materialist - no, for our ancestors, who put such qualities as honor, dignity, magnanimity above earthly life - yes. Well, what kind of man is this, in a moment of danger who will abandon loved ones, and will save his life by saving himself. Or wash off the battlefield.
      The document titled "A Russian Soldier's Camping Memo" contains the following lines:
      1. not good
        not good 23 March 2013 11: 25
        10
        At the heart of the Russian state was the Orthodox religion, and in the USA the primacy of the wallet over the soul. And crime in Russia (before perestroika) was always lower than in the US, unlike mattress mats, we always thought not only about ourselves, but also about those around us. .What would be the perfect laws in the country would not be, but if the western idea "Man is a wolf to man" is introduced, there will be no less blood.
        1. smile
          smile 23 March 2013 14: 04
          +5
          not good
          Their crime is even higher now, and there are about the same number of prisoners as in the rest of the world ...
          1. Very old
            Very old 22 June 2013 11: 23
            0
            And three times four times, walks free in the free world
        2. yak69
          yak69 23 March 2013 14: 56
          10
          Quote: Negoro
          if the western idea "Man to man is a wolf" is introduced, there will be no less blood.

          There will only be more blood with the ideology of consumerism. I remember how I was an Octobrist, a pioneer, a Komsomol member. In me, the entire system of upbringing around me instilled the concepts of duty, honor, respect for elders and loved ones, responsibility, self-dignity - Man, that sounds proudly! I don’t regret it. On the path of life, I happened to meet a lot of wonderful and worthy people. But now, I find myself in Moscow .... There was also the Soviet era. Mom dear !! I can't figure out what's going on. People in the capital are thinking about how to settle down "warmer" and better, everyone has connections with the right people, care about imported clothes, who went abroad and what they brought, etc. A disgusting, stifling liberal atmosphere. And then the understanding came that Moscow is ALREADY not Russia. And somehow the pathos of the words "" Moscow, how much in this word has merged for the Russian heart! "" Even then I thought that there was a putrid swamp atmosphere and this poison would spread throughout the country. And so it happened - the fish rotted from the head. We were, by and large, betrayed by the capital "" intelligentsia "" of Moscow and St. Petersburg.
          And Lenin was a thousandfold right when he said the following about the "intelligentsia": "" The intellectual forces of workers and peasants are growing and gaining strength in the struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie and its accomplices, intellectuals, lackeys of capital, who imagine themselves to be the brain of the nation. In fact, this is not a brain, but shit ""

          Translated from Latin and Italian, intelligentia roughly means - reasonable, thinking, cognizing. In Russia, an intellectual is a person who has a higher education in the third generation (when grandfathers, fathers and he himself have a "high school"). And the majority of our so-called metropolitan entelekhentsy is simply an infectious plague and traitors to the country.
          1. Very old
            Very old 22 June 2013 11: 37
            0
            Immediately + But I do not agree with you on everything. The city of Brazil was built in Brazil, the Kazakh capital moved to Astana. We need to build a new capital - naked Sochi, but about 5 Sochi are plundered according to the old Racean habit. Rotting in a capital city throughout the country is enough. It’s too late to clean, the old (real) intelligentsia is almost gone. A new one will not be born of damp
        3. kaprall
          kaprall 25 March 2013 19: 30
          0
          You know that America is a very religious country. True, it so happened that there is a multiconfessional religion, since people from many countries of the world live there. Russia also has many nationalities, but it seems to me that religion is a personal matter for everyone and it is not worth giving out as an idea. In the Soviet state, religion is separated de facto from the law, now only on paper ..
        4. Very old
          Very old 22 June 2013 11: 20
          0
          "With sadness I look at ..." Not everything can be returned from the lost, unfortunately ... You +
      2. smel
        smel 23 March 2013 19: 28
        +1
        Dear radio operator. No one calls into question these dogmas. But if you read the article, then remember that this is not about war and not about instruction before the battle. We are talking about violent acts in peaceful life. So Try at least a little ponder over what is written by me. EASY. Maybe you will understand. It is about educating a person and regulating relations in society ... But about the war you can’t teach me. I have enough experience of combat use, as well as state and departmental awards for success in this
        1. radio operator
          24 March 2013 12: 29
          0
          Quote: smel
          Dear radio operator. No one questions these dogmas. But if you read the article

          Of course I did. Not only read, but also posted on the site.
          You spelled the word "dogmas" very correctly - those things that should be unshakable from generation to generation.
          The whole question is what should come first: life or dignity. As a rule, you have to choose in extreme situations. And the author of the article, although amerikos, but raises this dilemma to the surface. Essentially, he condemns the call for reciprocal non-violence preached in Western society. We have this too all the time. About 8 years ago there was a case in Moscow when two Caucasians beat a guy near a metro station. At least 200 man was around and NOBODY intervened. All because of the preached proverbial liberal concept of respect for human rights. Which informs us that the highest value in the world is human life, and not a word about human dignity.
          1. Sandov
            Sandov 24 March 2013 20: 03
            +1
            Radio operator, do not intervene because they are then made extreme. Those who use force to protect themselves tend to suffer. Of course, dignity is above all and we must fight to defend it. Entire generations of Russians died during the Second World War. We all need to take an example from them.
    3. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 23 March 2013 13: 27
      -3
      Say yes, do not speak.
    4. Misantrop
      Misantrop 23 March 2013 17: 25
      +4
      Quote: smel
      There is nothing more valuable than life. Just like the values ​​of dignity and honor.
      How cleverly all together in one pile. Now I would still shit on top, so that no one had a desire to poke around ... Horseradish with him, with dignity, but what is more valuable, LIFE or HONOR? What can be sacrificed, saving another, and what is IMPOSSIBLE?
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 23 March 2013 20: 10
        +4
        Quote: Misantrop
        What is more valuable, LIFE or HONOR? What can be sacrificed, saving another, and WHAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE?

        Oh, the liberal was noted. Silently poked the minus and ... galloped on. Saving his, the one and only ... Life, of course, since he never knew about other concepts ... lol
  2. Sasha 19871987
    Sasha 19871987 23 March 2013 07: 12
    16
    I personally am for the legalization of weapons ... there is nothing more to add ...
    1. Defender
      Defender 23 March 2013 11: 55
      +3
      Hunting is legalized ... No one forbids carrying a piece of chain or armature with you, or if you want a civilized option, then buy an American police lantern (a rather heavy club) ... Legalization of a short-barrel will only add to the problems for everyone.
      1. SASCHAmIXEEW
        SASCHAmIXEEW 23 March 2013 15: 04
        +2
        I think it will add problems to those who are used to taking everything abruptly, on a hap, once, they will get another turnaround and there will be no problems!
      2. Passing
        Passing 23 March 2013 15: 28
        +2
        Quote: Defender
        Hunting legalized

        Hunting weapons are not self-defense weapons! Even inside the house, it is not effective in this capacity, because, according to the LAW, it is required to be stored discharged in an inaccessible place (in a safe).
        Quote: Defender
        No one forbids carrying a piece of chain or reinforcement

        The fact of their wearing will be interpreted by the court as an aggravating circumstance FOR YOU. This will be interpreted as a deliberate intent to inflict grievous bodily harm on a criminal. Remember the trial of a girl who injured a rapist with a sharpened screwdriver worn in her purse for self-defense.
        Quote: Defender
        american police flashlight

        If you are able to defend against three gopniks with a baton, then you are Batman. With what I congratulate you. And what about the rest of 99% of citizens relaxed by a quiet measured life, and who are never masters of hand-to-hand fighting of the international class?
        Quote: Defender
        Legalization of the short barrel will only add to all the problems.

        In addition to problems, the short barrel will add a good chance of self-defense. What is more acceptable, a hundred honest citizens innocently shot by various psychos in a year, or in that same year, thousands and thousands of honest citizens who have saved their lives, and tens of thousands of honest citizens who have preserved their dignity and property?
        1. zadorin1974
          zadorin1974 23 March 2013 16: 40
          +4
          Hello everyone ! Dear Mimo passing and supporters of his opinion, I want to ask you a question - were you somehow familiar with the Ministry of Internal Affairs or with the private security company? Or are you a soldier with a length of service and combat experience? So if not then maybe my opinion will be interesting to you - I am a former employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for family problems had to move to another city and settle in a private security company (first to the cargo escort group then to the quick reaction group) How they came to grips with weapons for almost 15 years now (I have every year a medical examination and exams). When I started working in the SG I already understood that if you want to survive, I don’t give a damn about the rules - the cartridge was pulled into the chamber right at the arms and into the store an extra cartridge and no fuses. In the GBR, the same thing just got a shocker (I'm not tyson butting with scumbags - I need my family alive and healthy) I’m opposed to granting licenses to the short-barrel companies to issue licenses to everyone — has the practice of selling injuries not yet taught you? Personally, my opinion is yes to allow the sale and storage short-bore rifled weapons to persons who have undergone special training and have been candidates for at least 5 years with a full check on all bases. BUT WITHOUT WEARING RIGHT! ! ! In principle, it’s easy to take the barrel from any hot pepper. With the wide distribution of small arms among civilians, criminals will shoot at the fire with a simple gop-stop - do you need it? Turn my practice - they shot me and poked with a knife for the last time they threw themselves with an ax - and even so, I don’t really want that deaf and stupid people in a tavern or a shop instead of a traumatic shot at me from a battle! ! ! WITH RESPECT
          1. Grishka100watt
            Grishka100watt 23 March 2013 18: 37
            +1
            I agree 100%. I work there myself.
            Saying "let everyone short-barreled", they imagine how they will pull it out of their pants to scare the gopniks to whom they are afraid to say a word without having a gun.
            But most likely, gopniks, who hypothetically can get to their bottom by that time, may already have their own trunk))))

            But they do not think about the consequences of such a decision. They are not interested in what they can shoot at us only because we have such a job.
            1. saygon66
              saygon66 23 March 2013 20: 09
              +2
              - In the RRB for 8 years ... At present, every piece can buy a gas cylinder, a shocker or a knife, and there are no words about self-made "instruments of death" ... But the cases with their use are not so frequent. The price for a short-barreled barrel will be simply prohibitive - what gopniks there are! But the haves are yes!
          2. Passing
            Passing 23 March 2013 20: 13
            +2
            Dear zadorin1974, your opinion is certainly interesting and informative. However, it’s not the first time I’ve heard something like this from experienced people associated with law enforcement agencies. But, your ideas are formed by the specifics of your life path and they do not quite meet the specifics of life of ordinary people, which are not comparable more than you.
            For example, you (generally), by virtue of your life and professional experience, "radiate" confidence in your abilities, so rarely any gopota will come running into you. And the typical man in the street, more often than not, is deprived of this level of self-defense. In addition, you may have martial arts skills, skills in the use of special equipment, so you have a chance to fight back without a firearm. And the typical man in the street is deprived of this opportunity. In addition, the very fact of your belonging to the security forces protects you from some of the potential assassination attempts of criminals. And the typical man in the street does not have any "roof" at all, he is alone with criminals. In addition, your life situations are different from the situations in which the layman finds himself. Let's say at work you are the "aggressor" in relation to the offender, and the man in the street, on the contrary, is the "victim". Therefore, they immediately rush at you with an ax to kill, and at first they rush into the man in the street in order to humiliate, beat, rob, but rarely when to kill, although this is often what it all ends with.
            You see, the layman simply does not have any other means of self-defense other than a short-barreled weapon, Unlike you, from representatives of law enforcement agencies. And in any way you (those who hold power) do not understand this simple thought. No wonder they say that a well-fed hungry one does not understand.
            Quote: zadorin1974
            BUT WITHOUT WEARING RIGHT! ! !

            In this case, the resolution of the short-barrel does not make sense, because it will cease to be a weapon of self-defense.
            Quote: zadorin1974
            With the widespread distribution of small arms among civilians, criminals will shoot at the creature with a simple gop-stop - do you need it?

            You are exaggerating, not many criminals are ready to kill people for any reason, such as an ostrich - a rupe, a hundred old women - a hundred rubles ... especially if they are eager to catch and shoot such thugs.
            Quote: zadorin1974
            Believe my practice - they shot at me and poked with a knife for the last time even with an ax - and even so I don’t really want that deaf and stupid people in a tavern or shop instead of traumatizing shot me from a combat! ! !

            This is your specific experience, the costs of your lifestyle, I have it a little different. In addition, if you (I, and other honest citizens) stopped everyone throwing at people with an ax, and every gopnik from the gate with a shot, then you would look and the streets of our cities would not belong to the gopto, but to honest citizens.
            1. saygon66
              saygon66 23 March 2013 20: 43
              +2
              - I am more a supporter than an opponent of the free sale of weapons ... However, after reading some comments I began to wonder: many armed citizens are able to calmly use weapons to kill, or will they grumble hysterically in the direction of a potential threat? It’s naive to strip the trunk in the hope that everyone will scatter in fright! This is how it is necessary to prepare our population ....
              1. Passing
                Passing 23 March 2013 21: 40
                +3
                Quote: saygon66
                However, after reading some comments, I began to wonder: did many armed citizens be able to calmly use weapons to defeat, or would they grumble hysterically in the direction of a potential threat?

                Many citizens served in the army (like me, for example), and they even trusted many of them with weapons (for example, I was tired of dragging PM in outfits, the infection is too heavy))), despite some theoretically possible "hysteria". wink
                Why in the army weapons are trusted to citizens, but not to civilians. request
                Quote: saygon66
                It’s naive to strip the trunk in the hope that everyone will scatter in fright! This is how it is necessary to prepare our population ....

                The best teacher is life. You want to live, and you’re not getting so excited (s)
                1. saygon66
                  saygon66 23 March 2013 22: 59
                  +1
                  -I have previously left a comment on the issue of readiness for self-defense, but I repeat: If an individual is internally ready for the total extermination of those who encroach on his life and health, he has the widest selection of deadly items: from a nail file to a chain from a chainsaw ... If no - and the trunk will not help. After all, you offer universal weapons, right? Or is it still an option Zadorin1974?
                  1. Passing
                    Passing 23 March 2013 23: 44
                    +1
                    Quote: saygon66
                    If an individual is internally ready for the total extermination of those who encroached on his life and health, he has the widest choice of deadly objects: from a nail file to a chain from a chainsaw.

                    Do you really not understand the specific mentality of a simple layman? It’s not a problem for you to hit the enemy with a chainsaw))), but for the average person there is a gigantic difference between sticking a knife with your hand into a living body and banal pressing the trigger. The difference in the required level of preparation and moral readiness to perform this action is simply gigantic. Anyone can trigger the barrel and pull the trigger. and a woman. And in a stressful situation, few will be tormented by moral throwings like Raskolnikov, the subconscious mind will frantically squeeze the finger on the hook, and the bullet will do all the dirty work.
                    Quote: saygon66
                    You offer universal armament, right?

                    Universal armament of Adequate people. Naturally, with exams and tests on the type of traffic cops, naturally with periodic re-certification. People spend several months on automobile rights, how do you think, in a few months, you can teach basic skills in using weapons? I do not see any problems. If a person is adequate naturally.
                    And by the way, about the purchased rights, it suddenly became very difficult in our city to pass on car licenses, they simply require an unrealistic level of knowledge and skill, and at the same time they stopped taking bribes! The acquaintance had already looked for good people, he didn’t find it, he had to take it honestly! laughing It’s simply amazing, because they can when they want.
                    1. Grishka100watt
                      Grishka100watt 24 March 2013 01: 11
                      +1
                      And how to teach in 2 months not to pull out weapons while intoxicated ??
                      NOBODY will say to the end how a person will behave in a critical (or as it seems to him - critical) situation.

                      If only a person who wants to get permission (you, for example) will lead, say, three guarantors who, in which case, will collect things and agree to move with you) Well, you understand where)
                      1. Passing
                        Passing 24 March 2013 03: 23
                        -1
                        Half of the world somehow lives with an approved short-barrel. Moreover, it is the drinking half. And even many former republics of the USSR, carriers of the "soviet" mentality, somehow quietly and peacefully, in a working order, in the shortest possible time, solved all the problems arising from the resolution of the short-barreled.
                        And without any crazy ideas about the three hostages, they decided, you know, in a civilized way, following the long-established world experience. wink
                      2. StolzSS
                        StolzSS 24 March 2013 04: 51
                        -1
                        I’ll tell you friends about arms with bukhariks. I have a friendship, he’s just a stupid person and a scumbag who pesteres passers-by in order to humiliate insult and pile on. And he has 2 pistols and a left Kalash at home. And from the experience of communicating with this person, I’ll say that there’s no way to wean him, only to kill him if he will once again hit you with a barrel to humiliate him. And according to the sober, he is an ordinary sailor whose wife and son are 6 years old. In a normal state like Switzerland, he would have been shot 10 years ago, but in ours ... well, you understand. For the 5 years that he spent on the coast of these 10, he beat someone on average once a month in Bukhara and at the same time didn’t shoot anyone yet. You know how to use a calculator and you yourself can calculate how many people were hurt .... And now I want to talk about another guy. He served in a specialist and, frankly, also a scumbag strong and inflated and also a stupid man in Bukhara, full and absolutely uncontrollable. When his state of affect gets drunk, he immediately divides the world into his own and enemies. On one such occasion, when he was seeing him home from a bar, a foot patrol stopped us at 3 at night to check documents ... well, he didn’t like the cops ... one immediately went to intensive care unit through the asphalt and broke his second arm, and then he turned around an extra-departmental security guard leaves the patrol ... I yell at him and he is already in arms with his half-insane condition ... in general, he was lucky to manage to clear everyone without firing ... according to the results of the guy, they coded and appointed rehabilitation for 3 years ... so Now let gentlemen liberals explain how the average person can resist such scumbags ??? And the second question is why should I secretly keep a barrel for every fireman from such frostbitten neighbors ??? Why are my rights to self-defense violated ??? By the way, I had the experience of calling cops for a showdown with neighbors, and frankly I’ll say shameful shame on nothing other than how to check the documents because, alas, I often had to deal with the last 10 years of my life ... Do you know what is the most effective way to deal with a neighbor now ??? I’ll tell you. Just a Caucasian acquaintance to order it on a gop stop)))) So you think before you write about the fact that we all will shoot for everyone because of the bagpipes and so on, every 20 people have, apart from of course women and children with old people ...
              2. zadorin1974
                zadorin1974 23 March 2013 21: 44
                +1
                Dear Saigon, the prohibitive cost of trunks on free sale (rifled) all garbage - also with injury - a run-up is possible from 15 thousand (commission-we can do this) to gilded show-offs with a price tag of six zeros. Now for cool crime fighters through short-barrels ( it’s advisable not to be discouraged by words but to think about the consequences) Some people think that I have a trunk on my side and I’m the king of the universe — just look at me crookedly — that’s them to me. And in fact, cross the line and shoot at the creature of a person - in an extreme situation (this means quickly, accurately, without emotions) it requires not a lot of physical and moral qualities and preparation. The gun implies the use of an opponent’s face almost at close range and good visibility - not every trained fighter is capable of this !!! And at the expense of a drunken redneck, drinking like that, they’ll play it in turns - until victory — in the morning, only when they realize what they have done in a soft place, they begin to tear their hair. My conclusion is that the office staff will buy a short barrel and a full OPPA will start, something by no means will shoot or Somehow he will fail, then he who will fuck you up on drunkenness, well, they’ll pick up and lose a fair amount too -LIVE AND HAPPY -And RALING ON WHAT WE WILL CRIME OUT OF CHILDREN WITH CHILDREN WILL BE CHARGED.
                1. saygon66
                  saygon66 23 March 2013 22: 39
                  +2
                  - What am I talking about? Comment from 20: 43!
  3. predator.3
    predator.3 23 March 2013 07: 16
    +8
    On May 26, 2012, third-year student of the Plekhanov Institute, Alexander Lotkov, at the Tsvetnoy Boulevard metro station in Moscow, made several shots from traumatic weapons, injuring two people - Ivan Belousov and Ibrahim Kurbanov. According to her, she used weapons for self-defense and to prevent the further development of the conflict. On March 20, 2013, the Tver Court of Moscow found Lotkova guilty under the article “Intentional grievous bodily harm” and sentenced her to three years in prison.


    Well, the girl used weapons, and as a result, 3 years in prison and a broken life, but she did the right thing! It was necessary to charge not these bastards in the piles, but between each eye! and then to report the use of weapons to law enforcement agencies, but she did not report and the court regarded this as concealment from the scene of the incident.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 23 March 2013 07: 22
      15
      Quote: predator.3
      Well, the girl used weapons, and as a result, 3 years in prison and a broken life, but she did the right thing! It was necessary to charge not these bastards in the piles, but between each eye!

      Do you know the aspects of the matter? there is far from everything. as you write.
      1. Bepdukt
        Bepdukt 23 March 2013 10: 09
        +7
        I saw the video myself, believe me, the girl is not to blame, and I would be in her place, after I would have dumped them from the trauma, I would not have kicked them too much.
      2. Sandov
        Sandov 24 March 2013 20: 12
        0
        Alexander, I saw a video on this occasion. Personally, I am on the side of the girl, well, what could she oppose against the boys. Fragile girl. Healthy boars and then knock.
    2. Normal
      Normal 23 March 2013 08: 16
      13
      Quote: predator.3
      Well, the girl used weapons, and as a result, 3 years in prison and a broken life, but she did the right thing!

      The fact of the matter is that she didn’t use the weapon correctly, didn’t inform the law enforcement agencies, tried to get rid of the weapon.
      Of course the sentence is absurd with its severity; For the infliction of grievous bodily harm, she received more than Mirzaev for the murder. But to say that she is not guilty, I would not.
      I will join this post:
      Quote: Alexander Romanov

      Do you know the aspects of the matter? there is far from everything. as you write.
      1. sams
        sams 23 March 2013 09: 13
        +2
        Quote: Normal
        The fact of the matter is that the weapon used was not correct

        That's it.
        Without even knowing all the circumstances of the case, I had enough, albeit a mounted video.
        The girl shot offhand, like a cowboy. In such a non-targeted shooting in a public place could suffer any passerby and there could be even more serious consequences.
        In this situation, it was she, and not the fighting guys, who posed the greatest public danger.
        This is just the case about a monkey with a grenade.
        Why do you need a traumatic gun? You obviously have no idea how and when it can be used and applied!
        It seems to me, psychologically, she was going to use weapons even before the beginning of the described event. That is, she would have applied it in any case sooner or later, perhaps even if the most trivial conflict arose. For a man with a weapon must have an internal brake and be able to really assess the situation. The girl did not understand this. For which she paid, while crippling a person.
        1. Normal
          Normal 23 March 2013 10: 23
          +3
          Quote: sams
          It seems to me, psychologically, she was going to use weapons even before the beginning of the described event. That is, she would have applied it in any case sooner or later, perhaps even if the most trivial conflict arose.
          Exactly! I am for legalization. BUT! Real training is needed. Not training in the basics of use, but the study of the law on weapons, application practices and the consequences thereof. Be sure to have a clear understanding of when the use of weapons is necessary. As practice shows now, this is not, unfortunately ...
        2. Dilshat
          Dilshat 23 March 2013 12: 01
          +4
          Cases are different. The more rights the owners of weapons have (in the case of acceptance of a permit to use the firearm), the stronger are the "internal brakes" for criminals.
        3. SASCHAmIXEEW
          SASCHAmIXEEW 23 March 2013 15: 12
          0
          Do you think that the one who attacked is a normal person and should not be stopped with a shot? How dare she shoot a normal guy ....
        4. Misantrop
          Misantrop 23 March 2013 16: 33
          +4
          Quote: sams
          For a man with a weapon must have an internal brake and be able to really assess the situation.
          When buying a toy airplane in a store, do you necessarily require a parachute with an ejection system? First, at all angles we’re trumpeting about the INJURY of the traumatism, that it’s NOT a WEAPON, and then we demand that we treat it like a combat weapon? And judge how to use combat? Pour dozens of military grenades onto the playground, and then judge the children for terrorism ... How can you judge for a bullet from a traumatism to vital points in the body, if not one forensic institute predicts the trajectory of the bullet? Of two consecutive bullets fired in succession, one may fall into the boot or not fall at all, and the other into the eye and fill up in place. With the same weapon position ...
    3. DMB87
      DMB87 23 March 2013 08: 17
      19
      What really happened? From the recordings from the surveillance cameras and the testimonies of both sides, a completely clear picture is drawn up.

      The company of young people and girls (who drank), among which our heroine Alexandra Lotkova, did not share the steps at the metro station with another company (who also drank). Obviously, both companies were predisposed to the conflict, which took place because of a trifle cause. The guys got into a fight (three for three). Judging by the fact that during her course no one received serious injuries, the fight was somewhat lazy. However, Lotkova, who was observing her from the side, decided to support her friends, and shot her opponents twice from a traumatic pistol. Both shots fell right on target. And if the victim Kurbanov was slightly injured in the stomach (he refused hospitalization), then the victim Belousov got a bullet in his lung, from which he fell to the floor and dropped out of the confrontation.

      This could have ended, but Lotkova, like a real killer, shot Belousov again, and her slightly beaten comrade charged him with his foot in the head. Note that by this moment a police officer was already nearby, languidly trying to stop the showdown (later fired), but this did not stop Lotkova from controlling the victim.

      Then the winning company proudly retired from the scene, not caring either about the condition of the defeated Belousov, or about the need to contact law enforcement agencies.

      When the next day my head cleared, Lotkova rushed to the hospital to Belousov with a cake and a proposal to put up. The victim was not against the world, but the law was such that nothing depended on his desire - the law enforcement machine automatically intervened in the case (doctors are required to report similar injuries to the police).

      As a result, Lotkova was taken into custody, and the investigation began. Apparently, realizing that the matter was almost hopeless, Lotkova’s defense decided to present her actions as necessary self-defense. Allegedly, Kurbanov threatened the company with a knife and swore terribly. But the court did not heed such arguments - firstly, because no evidence of a knife was found (it is also not visible on the video), and secondly, because Lotkova after the incident had no complaints whatsoever to the alleged attackers and did not think to state to the police about a threat to life, and tried to banally quickly hide and later put the blame on friends.

      Quote. http: //www.odnako.or...ogs/show_24651/
      1. Sirocco
        Sirocco 23 March 2013 09: 20
        +5
        Quote: Normal
        For the infliction of grievous bodily harm, she received more than Mirzaev for the murder.

        Thank you Igor for the detailed description of the events and what happened to Lotkova. BUT, still Normal, right. What kind of justice is this with us, and where are the human rights defenders, How so Mirzaev, did not give anything, Dead with braids stand, and silence. or do we have privileges for LCN and champions?
        1. not good
          not good 23 March 2013 10: 18
          +5
          In a similar situation, my classmate who received a rubber bullet between the ribs stopped his heart. The shooter got 2 years probation for manslaughter. According to the logic of our court, it’s more profitable to kill than to injure.
          1. Sirocco
            Sirocco 23 March 2013 10: 24
            +3
            Quote: Negoro
            .By the logic of our court, it’s more profitable to kill than to injure.

            According to an acquaintance who was soldered for the robbery for 8 years, there was more light. So, in consultation with a "friend" judge from another district. He said they would give less if they soaked him. Something like that recourse
            1. StolzSS
              StolzSS 24 March 2013 05: 02
              0
              That's right, this is the logic of the system. There is no person, no problems. And yes, we have privileges for the filthy Caucasians. And yes, the best way to deal with your foe is to order him to a familiar Caucasian for a gop stop. And you don’t need to get your hands dirty and you won’t have to leave evidence if you competently furnish ...
      2. Russian
        Russian 23 March 2013 10: 34
        +4
        May 26, 2012 20-year-old student of REU named after G.V. Plekhanova Alexandra Lotkova was returning with friends from the cafe. Having descended to the Tsvetnoy Boulevard metro station, Alexandra and her friends were attacked by a drunken company (a heavy degree of alcoholic intoxication of the attackers was recorded by expert analysis) consisting of Ibrahim Kurbanov, Ivan Belousov and Ivan Ermoshkin. The attackers beat Alexandra's friends, while Ibrahim Kurbanov inflicted three stab wounds to one of the young people. One young man from Alexandra’s company called the police, as evidenced by the testimony of the escalator attendant, but the police did not come to the scene for a long time. Alexander had to shoot from a legally owned traumatic gun, as the passengers did not intervene in the conflict, and the policeman who came after a long time was inactive, and therefore was fired after a few days. Through the shots, Ivan Belousov was seriously injured. Ibrahim Kurbanov is light. Alexandra almost immediately came to Belousov's hospital and apologized, because despite the unlawful behavior of the attackers, Alexandra had no intention of inflicting such serious injuries. Belousov also apologized to her for injuring her acquaintances, but as it turned out later, Kurbanov, Belousov and Ermoshkin wrote a statement to the girl the same day asking them to prosecute her. Now with young people everything is in order, they feel good. Investigator Gainullina Diana Hanifovna did not consider the version of self-defense, despite recorded stab wounds, recordings from video surveillance cameras, the serious state of alcoholic intoxication of the attackers, recorded by examination and testimony. She also refused to initiate a criminal case against Kurbanov, Belousov and Yermoshkin, since "the investigator does not see corpus delicti in their actions." At the moment, Alexander is accused of intentionally causing serious bodily harm to part 1 of article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (up to 8 years in prison). The investigation repeatedly intimidated Alexandra’s witnesses and refused to interrogate witnesses who were direct participants in the events on illegal grounds. Complaints to the prosecutor’s office were also wasted. At the moment, there is a judicial stage. The prosecutor Radjabova voiced the accusation, from which it follows that Alexandra intentionally inflicted grievous bodily harm on the basis of a sudden personal hostility. The "injured party" expressed its intention to file a claim for compensation for material and moral harm. The lawyer of the "victims" Ravil Dzhagfarovich Vafin has repeatedly petitioned for the re-qualification of Lotkova's actions to Part 2 of Art. 111 (a heavier article that does not provide for conditional punishment). In addition to all the enormous costs for a lawyer (and they are still to come), the materials of the criminal case contain a certificate that the state budget spent about 300 thousand rubles on the treatment of the "victims".
        PLEASE PAY ATTENTION:
        Injured by the name of Ibrahim Kurbanov, investigator Diana Khanifovna Gainullina (she refused to initiate criminal proceedings against Kurbanov), the prosecutor Rajabov (the prosecution, which implies that Alexandra deliberately caused grievous bodily harm due to a sudden personal hostility) organized a model Russian in Moscow the trial of Alexandra Lotkova.
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 23 March 2013 11: 15
          +2
          Ru_s_s_k_i_y, finish with these Natsikov’s highs.
          1. Defender
            Defender 23 March 2013 12: 07
            +4
            "A judge for soap ..." Relatives of co-religionists came and gave money and tearfully asked to settle everything ...
          2. Russian
            Russian 23 March 2013 14: 34
            +4
            The article itself, which I found, is written in a much tougher language, I took the most neutral.
            In your opinion, is it better to be a liberal and a tolerance? Soon we will be in Europe, and we will allow same-sex marriages, and parents will be called not dad and mom, but parent number 1 and number 2, although we can already see the fruits of how many crimes are committed by visitors, crime, unfortunately, already has a nationality.
            1. yak69
              yak69 23 March 2013 15: 10
              0
              Quote: р_у_с_с_к_и_й
              unfortunately, already has a nationality.

              A criminal, he is also a criminal in Africa. THE CRIMINAL DOES NOT HAVE A NATIONALITY - HE CRIMES THE LAW. And this LAW does not distinguish between national characteristics. Do not stir up enmity, we are all right away !!
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 23 March 2013 16: 49
                +1
                Quote: yak69
                A criminal, he is also a criminal in Africa. THE CRIMINAL DOES NOT HAVE A NATIONALITY - HE CRIMES THE LAW. And this LAW does not distinguish between national characteristics.
                Do not confuse warm with soft. I will write now by sight a paradoxical thing, BUT ... the offender is DIRECTLY different from a member of a national organized crime group. At least by the fact that the offender violates the law, most often - deliberately. Member of the national organized crime group extremely law abiding. But he does not comply with the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but the law of his grouping (for the punishment for violation is most often inevitable and extremely severe). And on the Criminal Code to him spit from a high hill, this does not concern him sideways, this is the leader’s business (to redeem, compensate, think about the consequences, etc.)
                1. yak69
                  yak69 23 March 2013 18: 11
                  +1
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  Do not confuse warm with soft.

                  You are confusing it, respected, and blame others. What is the difference between an ordinary bully and a member of an organized crime group (national or not) ?? In fact, the "size" of the article of the Criminal Code and EVERYTHING! No matter who they fear, they are all criminals. Moscow is (again) not Russia. Guest workers and thieves of all stripes are now going to Moscow. I live in Moscow myself and I see who is buying apartments in my area - regional thieves and "businessmen".
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  A member of the national organized crime group is extremely law-abiding.

                  And, if you call the behavior of a member of a national organized crime group loyal to his gang - LAW, then you are definitely lost. Or have long been living on your own for a long time.
                  1. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 23 March 2013 18: 45
                    0
                    Quote: yak69
                    the behavior of a member of a national organized crime group loyal to his gang - LAW, then you are definitely lost

                    Tell yourself, what is the LAW? IMHO is a set of rules that violate the individual is fraught very unpleasant the consequences. And on guard which is the punitive system of society. Whether it is official or not, it depends only on the area of ​​residence and the fortress of the official authorities there. In other words, a law is a set of behavioral rules that allow an individual to both survive and become successful and influential in his environment (in another section of society, behavioral laws can differ dramatically).
                    Quote: yak69
                    In fact, the "size" of the article of the Criminal Code and EVERYTHING!

                    Oh really? If aggravated murder gives less than petty hooliganism? If the measure of the "weight" of punishment is not the severity of what was committed, but the degree of influence of the patrons of the perpetrator? Tear yourself away from the keyboard, look out the window (if it's really dumb to go out). Yes, I, and not only me, live "according to concepts." But I live, not rot in the nearest cemetery. Can you suggest another way of being in Ukraine today? When the power in the country for a year is divided by two criminal groups (writing laws "for themselves" and "for cattle"). And as regards compliance with laws in Moscow, share information on the results of the investigation into the protection of the gambling business by the authorities in the Moscow region. Then it will be possible to talk further ...
                    1. yak69
                      yak69 23 March 2013 20: 14
                      +1
                      Quote: Misantrop
                      Answer yourself, what is the LAW? .... this is a set of rules that violating the individual is fraught with very unpleasant consequences. And on guard of which is the punitive system of society.

                      Since you pretend to the depth of meaning, I will try to briefly remind you of some FUNDAMENTAL moments.
                      So. In human society, it is customary to give a precise definition to each phenomenon of life in order to avoid confusion and delusions (the essence of illogisms). We call black black, orange orange, human being, etc. Each "thing" has its own inherent characteristics and reflects its content. When a person does good, we say he is virtuous; when he does evil, we speak of his inhumanity and cruelty. The concept of the LAW is given from above and this phenomenon is divine. What is the opposite of this is called lawlessness. Do you see the difference? If you and I begin to call antisocial acts and gangster behavior with words given from above, we will thereby change their socially accepted status. If we begin to call the behavior of the gangsters from the organized crime group the LAW, thereby we will give the gangsters the RIGHT to judge themselves. In the same way, if we officially allow prostitution, we will change its social status - from CRIMINAL ACT to WORK. Further, according to the same logic, the status of the killer will change (I assure you!), As the status of all sorts of perverts - pi..orov and licks - is already changing. This process is called substitution and is the most powerful weapon of the world behind the scenes against humanity. The devil is the father of lies. So it is precisely by false substitution of you who have accepted the rules of "concepts" that they accustom humanoid animals to life. At the same time, slipping such a refrain "" they steal there, but what are we, redheads or something! "". In other words, the "concept" is a common thread in your life. with wolves live by wolf howl... It turns out that Jesus went to Golgotha ​​in vain, accepted a painful death (and many of his holy followers), in vain our grandfathers sacrificed their lives in the Great Patriotic War! They just had to "adapt" to the Fritzes and that's it. The main message of the Savior was that a person should cease to be afraid of physical death. "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, who cannot kill the soul." And the acceptance of wolf instincts is the killing of your own soul. And this is what you do not understand. Do you consider it an achievement that you do not rot in the cemetery? And for this, according to your logic, are you ready to adapt to all the abomination that is happening around?
                      No need to nod at others, who and how lives and steals, be responsible for yourself and if you are ready to change your human dignity and sell your soul for the sake of a "decent" position in modern society, then (I repeat) you are lost.
                      I do not live by concepts and will not live by them. And no matter how much modern society beats me, I will try to preserve my HUMAN dignity. And precisely due to the fact that not everyone has changed the FUNDAMENTAL LAW in their souls for life "by concepts", it is for this reason that humanity is still alive!
                      So, as soon as the last person professing the LAW disappears, humanity will turn into biped animals and cannibals.

                      And God save me, call someone to righteousness. Everyone makes his choice and is responsible for his soul.
                      Take it as information for consideration ....
                      1. Misantrop
                        Misantrop 23 March 2013 20: 32
                        0
                        Quote: yak69
                        in vain our grandfathers sacrificed their lives in the Great Patriotic War! They just had to "adapt" to the Fritzes and that's it.

                        Yes, it was necessary to adapt. Who failed, he died immediately. And mine have adapted. They not only managed to survive on their own, but also helped the two brothers grandmothers, who fought at that time in the Yalta partisan detachment, with food. Yes, breaking at the same time, the law that existed at that time in this place (for which my great-grandmother was shot, and my mother miraculously survived). But then they knew in the name of what they did it. And as for the contradiction between moral and legal laws, this is not for me, but for lawmakers. Legalizing gay marriage, prostitution, drug addiction, etc. Standing in white, of course, is very beautiful, but ... a little impractical. Having met a prostitute on the street or pardoning homosexuals, what do you do with them? In real life, and not on the forum page?
                        Quote: yak69
                        And precisely due to the fact that not everyone has changed the FUNDAMENTAL LAW in their souls for life "by concepts", it is for this reason that humanity is still alive!
                        Is Europe still alive? Or do I have outdated information?
                      2. yak69
                        yak69 23 March 2013 22: 10
                        0
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        Having met a prostitute on the street or pardoning homosexuals, what do you do with them? In real life, and not on the forum page?

                        It is not for me to judge you and your family, each will give an answer in due time.
                        I do not touch homosexuals and prostitutes until they creep into me, into my family and my country with my propaganda. A personal sexual choice is everyone’s business, but this choice should not be FORCED by others, much less propagandized in our country!
                        And if this pi ... goodness will become impudent and climb into my house, I will mercilessly tear this evil spirits into pieces!
                        What about Europe? Well, let them rot further, it's their choice. They are not friends for me, much less an example to follow.
                      3. Misantrop
                        Misantrop 23 March 2013 22: 15
                        0
                        Quote: yak69
                        And if this pi ... goodness will become impudent and climb into my house, I will mercilessly tear this evil spirits into pieces!
                        Even if it is in accordance with the laws of the country and under the guise of law enforcement forces? And they will be impudent, they are different and can not
                      4. yak69
                        yak69 23 March 2013 22: 43
                        0
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        Even if it is in accordance with the laws of the country and under the guise of law enforcement forces?

                        I am convinced that there will be no laws in favor of this evil in Russia. The guarantee of this is the ever-growing active position of the citizens of Russia (I visit pickets and signatures gathering against this European bacchanalia) and I see how many new people come and especially replenish with young and active people. They are already aware of what is happening in life, who is the enemy and who is friend. The Kurginyan movement is conducting its work. Project USSR 2.0 gaining strength among the people, I see this by the number of joining. Positive processes are underway and there is hope that we will revive the country! It is only necessary not to be lazy, fearlessly and actively show their position in life. I very often have to firmly defend my opinion and principles in society - at work, in communication with officials, just in society. And most importantly, to live so that my words do not diverge from my deeds and actions. This is the hardest work! But it bears fruit.
                        First of all, self-esteem and confidence. And for the beginning of positive processes, this is good.
        2. Russian
          Russian 23 March 2013 17: 41
          +3
          Okay, I won’t write anything else on this thread. Of course, I understand that you want to say that every nation has all sorts of scumbags, and there are wonderful people, but the trouble is that for example, in the city I live in (Moscow) the worst representatives come, and with no law they don’t want to reckon, but they make their own laws, and since they are mountains for each other, they rarely get what they deserve! And so I completely agree that before the law everyone should be equal, regardless of any nationality.
  4. Uncle
    Uncle 23 March 2013 13: 22
    +4
    Quote: р_у_с_с_к_и_й
    Injured by the name of Ibrahim Kurbanov, investigator Diana Khanifovna Gainullina (she refused to initiate criminal proceedings against Kurbanov), the prosecutor Rajabov (the prosecution, which implies that Alexandra deliberately caused grievous bodily harm due to a sudden personal hostility) organized a model Russian in Moscow the trial of Alexandra Lotkova.

    Some pasties.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 23 March 2013 14: 42
      +1
      This topic was discussed on a neighboring branch.
      http://topwar.ru/25721-pochemu-rossiyskie-vlasti-ne-vvodyat-razreshenie-na-korot
      kostvol-ognestrel.html # comment-id-1014351
      Lotka’s guilt was unchallenged, no self-defense, the only victims - from Lotkova’s traumatic pistol, gave little. If one crazy woman didn’t start shooting, no one would be hurt.
      I’ll clarify from the company of the victim - two Russians and one Tatar, however, the media are talking about some Caucasians.
      Quote: Uncle
      Some pasties.

      Do not eat chebureks bought in the subway.
      1. Passing
        Passing 23 March 2013 15: 52
        0
        Quote: Setrac
        Lotka’s guilt was unchallenged, no self-defense, the only victims - from Lotkova’s traumatic pistol, gave little.

        You are apparently from the prosecutor. For your logic is not human.
        Well, it turns out, a trinity of thugs scumbag drove in and beat up young people peacefully standing on the platform, so this is nonsense, normal public behavior, well, they stuffed the nerds' face, so they wipe the blood off the yushka, heal the bruises on the sick week, and they brush new teeth, and they will continue to live like nothing was, tea is not a bar, but a redneck, which should be docile and humble. But the fact that the girl tried to the best of her ability to stop the beating of her friends, then this is a monstrous crime, such as dare to resist violence, who is it that she dares to harm the health of the law respected by the law? Let him know his place, and this place is at the bucket.
        1. bddrus
          bddrus 23 March 2013 16: 10
          +3
          where did the "peaceable youth" come from? I don't know how reliable - even with a hatchet and a pistol?
          1. Passing
            Passing 23 March 2013 18: 04
            0
            Quote: bddrus
            where did the "peaceable youth" come from?

            Who was the initiator of the conflict? Is Lotkovaya company really? belay
            Quote: bddrus
            also with hatchet and gun

            This is insanity in general, excuse this not for you personally, but for the principle cultivated by the authorities - that if you intentionally carry self-defense weapons (trauma, hatchet), it means a dangerous criminal in advance, because you consciously assume that the attacker is seriously harmed.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 23 March 2013 20: 26
              0
              As a driver, I’ll give a parallel if a pedestrian violates the rules, this does not mean that he needs to be put on the hood. Some kind of sluggish fight, nothing threatened any of the brawlers. The authorities act correctly, do not give citizens the legal right to kill others.
              1. Passing
                Passing 23 March 2013 20: 56
                0
                Quote: Setrac
                nothing threatened any of the brawlers

                How many fights ended with the death or disability of the beaten? Two are beating your friend, will you stand still and enjoy the sight? In addition, the weapon is called traumatic, so it is understood that its use is no different from punches. Why is it possible for gopniks to beat your acquaintance, but you cannot use an "analogue of a fist" to protect him? Especially if you are a girl and can't use your fists?
                Quote: Setrac
                The authorities act correctly, do not give citizens the legal right to kill others.

                Someone killed? Lotkova used military weapons? Or shot body parts prohibited by instruction?
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 23 March 2013 21: 13
                  +1
                  Quote: Passing by
                  In addition, the weapon is called traumatic


                  That very much misleads the people, as well as the popular "rezinostrel", "rezinoplyuy", etc.
                  In reality it is called "limited range firearms"with all the ensuing legal problems if applied.

                  Quote: Passing by
                  Lotkova used military weapons? Or shot body parts prohibited by instruction?

                  Lokotkova used firearms against a lying man who did not threaten her at all. Fortunately, I did not accidentally kill. So she was lucky that it was not qualified as an attempted murder.
                2. Passing
                  Passing 23 March 2013 23: 00
                  0
                  Quote: Spade
                  In reality, it is called "limited destruction firearms" with all the ensuing legal problems if used.

                  In reality, it is called what the authorities called it (the first official documents, manufacturers, journalists, etc.), and if the authorities somewhere in their backstage bowels suddenly began to call it differently, and at the same time no propaganda and awareness campaign was bothered to conduct then who is the guilty one? Are we ordinary citizens again?
                  Quote: Spade
                  Fortunately, I did not accidentally kill.

                  This is an unscrupulous insinuation! The traumatic weapon according to the instructions (read in the nineties) is ALLOWED to be used on the body and limbs. Therefore, the girl did not even theoretically attempt to kill, and accordingly she could have killed just by accident, and not vice versa!
                3. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 24 March 2013 00: 01
                  0
                  Quote: Passing by
                  In reality, it is called as it was called by the authorities

                  And the authorities called things by their proper names. This is not "traumatic" at all, this is a limited lethal firearm.


                  Quote: Passing by
                  This is an unscrupulous insinuation!

                  Insinuation? She finished off the lying wounded. This is a reinforced concrete fact.
                  And now choose: she did it in a state of passion, that is, he was just lucky that she did not kill, or she did it in cold blood, deliberately trying to inflict heavy bodily ones, as she perfectly observed the effect of her previous shot.
                4. Passing
                  Passing 24 March 2013 00: 42
                  0
                  Quote: Spade
                  Insinuation? She finished off the lying wounded. This is a reinforced concrete fact.

                  Engaged in the manipulation of meaning through the substitution of concepts.
                  Reinforced concrete fact of what? What did you finish? What do you mean? Attempted to kill something? REAL facts, these insinuations clearly refute. She fired from officially purchased traumatic weapons, the use of which officially implies a non-lethal action, shot at an officially permitted area of ​​the body, shot first to protect herself, and then protecting her friends who were beaten at that moment. These are reinforced concrete facts.
                  There is also the fact of a shot after the end of the fight. This is truly exceeding the required level of self-defense. Draws on petty hooliganism at the present time. Taking into account the fact that BY RANDOMITY, the traumatic bullet worked NANELY, and pierced the attacker's chest (according to him, struck with the first shot, and not at the time of his "finishing off"), causing harm to the health of the attacker, not life-threatening, as well as Given that it was the girl who was subjected to aggression, and acted in a state of passion, it would have been enough to suggest in the prosecutor's office that it’s not good to do this. And this was the end of the matter.
                  Instead, the case was perverted and inflated into a "resonant" crime, and the girl was made a "scapegoat", on the example of which the authorities, with demonstrative cruelty, teach their citizens to suddenly change their course regarding the use of trauma.
                5. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 24 March 2013 02: 01
                  0
                  Quote: Passing by
                  Engaged in the manipulation of meaning through the substitution of concepts.
                  Reinforced concrete fact of what? What did you finish? What do you mean? Attempted to kill something? REAL facts, these insinuations clearly refute.


                  Quote: Passing by
                  There is also the fact of a shot after the fight. This is really an excess of the necessary level of self-defense.


                  Yes, you contradict yourself. Is there no fact, and at the same time it is? By the way, why is the "fact of the shot" so modest, write what actually happened: the fact of the second wound of Belousov, which was produced when he was already lying on the floor in a helpless state.

                  Quote: Passing by
                  Pulls for petty hooliganism in modern times.

                  Incomparable ... Since when did a shot at a lying person and his injury become "petty hooliganism"? This is more like at least deliberate infliction of grievous bodily harm.


                  Quote: Passing by
                  Given that, by chance, the traumatic bullet worked abnormally

                  Three times "worked abnormally"? One bullet in the belly of one; two, in the chest and in the back, the other?

                  The bullets fired absolutely regularly every time. And that is precisely why it is not "traumatic" or "rezinostrel", this is a firearm of reduced lethality.


                  Quote: Passing by
                  the girl was aggressed

                  When did you shoot at the wounded?
                6. Passing
                  Passing 24 March 2013 04: 45
                  0
                  Quote: Spade
                  Yes, you contradict yourself. There is no fact, and at the same time is it?

                  The fact of some villainous "finishing off" is absent, but there is the fact of a shot from a traumatic pistol at the lying attacker. Not from a combat pistol, not from a crippling pistol, but from a traumatic one.
                  Federal Law "On Weapons"
                  Civilian weapons are divided into:
                  1) self-defense weapon:
                  ...
                  firearms of limited destruction (pistol, revolver, firearms barrelless device of domestic production) with traumatic cartridges, gas cartridges and cartridges of light and sound action;

                  Your passages about the fact that it is not a traumatic weapon, but already a weapon of reduced lethality, this is something very strange, who knows that it turns out to be no longer a traumatic one? The law contains the concept of a limited lesion, a traumatic cartridge, and not a word about "reduced mortality". Is this some kind of internal concept, such as a new interpretation of the law?
                  And even if so, the girl then under the painting brought the fact of changing the status of her traumatic gun? It turns out that the judges on the sly issued a by-law, in accordance with the latest trends from above, but did not find it necessary to warn the public and users who bought the traumatic gun specifically? Where is a wide propaganda company explaining these newly discovered nuances? or is this a demonstratively cruel trial of a girl and is the form accepted by the authorities to convey fluctuations in their course to cattle?
                  Quote: Spade
                  Since when did a shot at a lying person and his injury become "petty hooliganism"? This is more like at least deliberate infliction of grievous bodily harm.

                  Why are you so stubbornly equating a traumatic pistol with a combat pistol? Can't you see the difference between a shot from a gunshot from an injury? Is it reflected somewhere in the laws, or is it purely your fabrication?
                  Quote: Spade
                  Three times "worked abnormally"? One bullet in the belly of one; two, in the chest and in the back, the other?

                  It worked properly twice. Those. did not cause grievous bodily harm. So let's not again engage in manipulation of concepts and whipping up emotional hysteria, and no longer tell the terrible horrors about bullets in the stomach and back, implying horrific wounds and ruined intestines. This is all your artistic hyperbole, and the reality is that these injuries are no more dangerous than a nose bruised with a fist. The second, struck by trauma, refused to be hospitalized, one must think with a "bullet in the stomach" he would not have been so careless.
                7. Passing
                  Passing 24 March 2013 04: 46
                  0
                  Quote: Spade
                  When did you shoot at the wounded?

                  Again press on emotions - ah, he was wounded, what kind of creature is she who raised her hand against a bleeding man! Not seriously, arguments of the level of tabloids and "let them talk" programs.
                  Why did you decide that the girl consciously shot at the wounded, are you sure that she generally noticed that this type was wounded somewhere? Just briskly beat her friend, and then immediately wounded, why wounded something? Well, I got hit by a TRAUMATIC bullet, fell from a strike, can get up at any time, and start beating everyone again, so you need to add a blow from another TRAUMATIC bullet.
                  As for the attack, the "victim" tried to take her property, her traumatic pistol, from the girl by force, and only the intervention of her friend saved her from robbery and aggression with unpredictable consequences, then this type chased her, one must think he was shouting to her not - girl wait, let's let's explain, but something like - uroyu bitch f ** naya.
                8. bddrus
                  bddrus 24 March 2013 10: 18
                  0
                  Explain then how it turned out that (in the video it is visible) she is shooting already in the presence of a policeman? that two Belousov who was shot down was beaten by two (apparently her friends — don’t you think that his friends beat him), while one sits on top, and the second kicks the person lying on his head at the end? Who was she protecting here? I first thought that her friend was lying and she was shooting to help him, but it turned out the opposite? And it is still unknown who started the fight - or rather, I doubt the veracity of such a version
          2. StolzSS
            StolzSS 24 March 2013 05: 30
            +1
            Once again I explain that it’s a pity that I wouldn’t have killed so I would at least have sat down for the cause. As for the reinforced concrete fact with the completion, it is necessary to clearly state in the law on injuries that this is an aggravating circumstance, and only then yell that this is a reinforced concrete fact. Although, according to normal human logic, this is an indisputable fact if there is evidence of this. But according to the logic of the system, if my friend had finished off these 3 attackers from the traumatism, and he probably would have finished it, he would have been a scumbag until he was coded and was not allowed through rehabilitation after the war syndrome. So he would not have been an aggravating circumstance for he was so taught in the army to kill enemies he himself heard this in court, although we have no case law in the country, therefore, we have a law wherever they want to go there ....
  5. StolzSS
    StolzSS 24 March 2013 05: 22
    0
    Are you actually an adequate person ??? Or are you a rimbaud with a black belt ??? When was the last time you were in a fight ?? Doesn't it seem to you that if a tipsy man runs into you and hits you with fists, then it would be reasonable to answer everyone that turns up by the arm ??? Maybe you have a friend a master of sports in judo and you and her calmly like a stone wall ???
  • Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 23 March 2013 20: 42
    +1
    Quote: Passing by
    This is insanity in general, excuse this not for you personally, but for the principle cultivated by the authorities - that if you intentionally carry self-defense weapons (trauma, hatchet), it means a dangerous criminal in advance, because you consciously assume that the attacker is seriously harmed.

    I will ask you two questions:
    1. Is a man wearing an ax adequate for self-defense in the city? To stop further questions, I emphasize: adequate? But is it possible for him to carry his law.
    2. Why shoot at a lying person for self-defense?
    1. Passing
      Passing 23 March 2013 22: 05
      0
      Quote: Vladimirets
      1. Is a man wearing an ax adequate for self-defense in the city?

      Suppose not such a huge hatchet behind a belt (as in the textbook worker of a knife and an ax))), but such a small hatchet, almost an analogue of a knife. We don’t have knives for carrying, short-barrels are forbidden, traumatism is of doubtful effectiveness, and the hatchet is allowed, or rather not yet prohibited. So the answer to your question is yes, adequate! It is adequate to the situation in which the authorities drove him, trying to deprive him of any opportunity for self-defense.
      Quote: Vladimirets
      2. Why shoot at a lying person for self-defense?

      Why not, but it’s such a reflex worked out by life - to beat a recumbent. The norm of behavior of Russians. The state does not fight with such a disgusting distortion of mentality, and even rather cultivates such. So do not demonize a weak girl who, in a stressful situation, acted as her subconscious, formed by society, tells her to. Especially in the case when it all ended not at all with death, and not even with disability, but with trauma.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 23 March 2013 22: 12
        +1
        Quote: Passing by
        Why not, but it’s such a reflex worked out by life - to beat a recumbent.

        You already decide who this person is.
        Lovely Turgenev girl, or ... having an acquired reflex to finish lying
      2. Passing
        Passing 23 March 2013 22: 40
        0
        Not OR, but I. And the Turgenev girl, and the ruthless killer.)))
        In addition to jokes, consciousness (education, personal inclination) is drawn to the values ​​of the noble nineteenth century, and consciousness (moral attitudes imposed by society) dictates to finish off the enemy. In a stressful situation in untrained people, the subconscious comes out to the first role.
      3. Lopatov
        Lopatov 24 March 2013 00: 09
        0
        Dear, no nonsense is necessary, this is impossible. And there is no need to talk about "moral attitudes imposed by society", I live in Russia.
      4. Passing
        Passing 24 March 2013 01: 39
        0
        Quote: Spade
        no delusions, this is impossible

        If you are such a whole person, who in principle does not have any internal conflicts, then I sincerely envy you. Not every day you intersect with such a harmonious personality! hi
        But nevertheless, descend to ordinary small men, take a closer look at the people around you, I’m sure you will be surprised how much the rest, not so perfect people, are torn apart by internal contradictions. wink
        Quote: Spade
        And there is no need to talk about "moral attitudes imposed by society", I live in Russia.

        To be present at an event does not mean to notice this event. Once again - take a closer look at the surrounding reality:
        Why are "Brigades", "Lost", and other dregs propagating the law of the jungle, and this propaganda of ghoul values ​​arouses genuine enthusiasm among viewers?
        Why do all sorts of young scumbags kill homeless people, and the public cares not at all about this, but the fate of the Khimki forest, the "inhuman" shooting of wandering dogs, and much more, but not truly tragic fates of people.
        Why does the very fact of homeless people cause people to feel disgusted, rather than wanting to figure out which greedy ghouls kicked tens of thousands of people out of their apartments.
        Why is the idea that beggars beggars is a brazen, cunning mafia that lives on simpletons cultivated in society, and therefore they are served only suckers.
        Why are there thousands of homeless children in Russia, and the Duma and the debility agent are concerned about the fate of only a few adopted Russian children who died in the United States.
        Why is there a brutal tightening of punishment for women lately? Not all so far, but only individual ones who have unsuccessfully come under the social and political moment, and whose crimes are hysterically inflated by both the authorities and the clattering public. And for the same crimes for which men receive conditional punishment, these women are almost a quarter of a brutal crowd.
      5. Lopatov
        Lopatov 24 March 2013 02: 13
        +1
        Quote: Passing by
        If you are such a whole person, who in principle does not have any internal conflicts, then I sincerely envy you.

        Yes, it is such a person. Especially when the life and health of others depend on my actions. For example, when I'm driving. Or when a weapon is in my hands

        Only I do not quite understand how my personality relates to your justification of the theoretical possibility of the existence of a virgin who has undergone seven abortions.

        And everything else written by you is lyricism, nonsense, stories about spherical horses in a vacuum. Which in no way cancel the fact that this individual was punished quite rightly, and very mildly for her case.
      6. Passing
        Passing 24 March 2013 03: 05
        0
        I’m talking about an extremely complex structure of human consciousness, you obviously don’t support this thesis, well, let’s remain everyone with their own opinion.
      7. StolzSS
        StolzSS 24 March 2013 06: 09
        0
        I am glad that you are such a solid and good person and think about others. But I'm not so solid and try to think less about others. Nevertheless, I had the opportunity to discuss this story at a corporate party. So, 6 out of 7 girls present honestly admitted that they don’t need a weapon and they didn’t even hold it in their hands and were not ready to interact with it in any way. The seventh demonstrated a gas spray, the uselessness of which I immediately demonstrated by splashing a guard in the face of our Seryoga and just a nice guy with a great blow to the right. By the way, I received a blow immediately in response and the spray can only upset him. Then we all agreed that I wasn’t worth doing like that, and that the girls in our team were defenseless. So now, back to the weapon of self-defense, I’m not physically complex at all and will cope alone with 3 attackers even with a knife. And if I were in the company of a girl who is being tried for using injuries, I would be glad that she threw the attacker on the floor because I know that the complexion would not be the first to climb. You may wish to doubt my words, referring to the fact that I’m in the face of a canister from a spray can, but I dare to assure you that I knew what I’m doing since I know this person for more than 10 years ... Just if you deny the very possibility of total self-defense using all of possible means, either you are a jock athlete or you haven’t been in a situation when you are being humiliated as a healthy uncle by a boy of 10 years, but my personal experience tells me that not a weapon kills people but people. And it’s quite obvious that if the short-barrel is allowed, neither my mother nor my sister or girls from my work will rush to buy it, especially if I need to go through a commission as in a chop ... Now as for the gopniks with bagpipes. Well, let's face it, if such a gopnik with a bagpipe attacks my mother, then she’s more likely to die from the heart than from a bagpipe and the result from an attack with a knife will be the same ... As for the fact that a gopnik with a bagpipe will attack me and I will have a bagpipe I would have a chance, and since now I’m like that boy of 10 years old, whom the evil uncles from the habzaike run into, with the only difference being that I have a knife that I’ll put into action at a convenient moment. And the only thing that upsets me is that you can’t cut the neighbors that the gopniks, since they have wives and children, although they are full, but their children are not to blame for their fathers who didn’t become normal people ... You can my opinion seems harsh, well, excuse me here in the north for the Arctic Circle, as it turns out harshly, maybe the polar night affects us like that or changeable weather, but when you go to work in the dark in the morning and come back in the dark, sometimes you want to have a gun ready for battle a fireman, because sometimes it’s scary to enter the porch because a drunken hint hints that you can be hurt at least by insults ....
  • StolzSS
    StolzSS 24 March 2013 05: 39
    0
    About a man wearing an ax in the city. Just do not die with laughter. There is one small humpbacked one in our city. So they go with friends like roleeviki and humpbacked with an ax and wave them to neigh past the FSBK well, and some kind of FSB officer could not stand it and took it away. But after 3-4 years of the same humpbacked at work caught for the fact that he jerked off the stuffing. So, I’m somehow inclined to consider a man with an ax in the middle of the city a faster inadequate deer than a man wearing it for self-defense, since in my opinion a knife or taser or the same wasp is enough for self-defense ...
  • StolzSS
    StolzSS 24 March 2013 05: 17
    -1
    Yes insanity! So I carry a knife with me. And every time PPP stops me with him, I sincerely say that this is my working tool, I'm an electrician, that's Xivas and go guys on. But this is the logic of the system, even if it is absurd and yes I have used this knife 5 times the last 2 years and yes I didn’t even think about those whom I cut because it is harmful to me personally. And I never attacked anyone the first time, I just hit clearly and immediately for defeat, and then molted quickly and without looking back. The girl just acted in good faith and received from the fact that the chebureks bought the system. But if she had completely flunked them so that the camera would not have seen and merged with friends from the place of emergency, then everything would have been smooth and smooth :)
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 24 March 2013 11: 31
      +1
      Where did you see chebureks there? Or are you in the culinary sense? Two Russians and a Tatar, we still need to figure out what kind of nationality is on the other hand, and who are there for the people who walk with axes, the woodcutters are damn room.
    2. Grishka100watt
      Grishka100watt 24 March 2013 17: 12
      0
      And you want to have a gun ???
      Stabbed a man with a knife and ran away ..
      And you didn’t take his wallet as compensation for moral damage?
      I realized who I’m talking to.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 24 March 2013 18: 01
        0
        Quote: Grishka100watt

        And you want to have a gun ???
        Stabbed a man with a knife and ran away ..
        And you didn’t take his wallet as compensation for moral damage?
        I realized who I’m talking to.

        No need to measure others by yourself, we learned a lot about you according to your words. If I wanted a gun I would have it. Obtaining permission to carry weapons in our country is quite easy, but people are too lazy to perform the required minimum of actions.
        But for example, a pregnant woman, you also offer to engage in a fight with the criminal?
      2. Grishka100watt
        Grishka100watt 24 March 2013 18: 09
        0
        I did not write to you.
      3. Setrac
        Setrac 25 March 2013 00: 04
        0
        Quote: Grishka100watt

        I did not write to you.

        Quoting saves from such errors.
      4. Grishka100watt
        Grishka100watt 25 March 2013 09: 24
        0
        Fir-tree sticks, I did not quote, but wrote. And he wrote not to you, but
        StolzSS. Everything is clear there and there is no mistake!

        I answered the statement, my avatar in this case is shifted to the right, I thought you know, with such a rating)
      5. Setrac
        Setrac 25 March 2013 17: 03
        0
        My mistake is a consequence of the fact that I did not understand to whom you are writing, I do not blame you for anything, except for mutual flood.
      6. Grishka100watt
        Grishka100watt 26 March 2013 11: 48
        0
        I agree, drove through. Yes moderators will forgive us)
  • Setrac
    Setrac 23 March 2013 18: 03
    +1
    A group of aggressive frostbitten youth, including girls, armed with cold and traumatic weapons, they are opposed by three unarmed guys. Where are the injuries and bruises that you speak so confidently about?
    On the camera you can see that the wounded are being beaten, it’s the girl’s friends who decided to finish off the victim! No one used violence against her.
    Gopota is a group of youth armed with cold and traumatic weapons.
    1. Passing
      Passing 23 March 2013 21: 08
      0
      Quote: Setrac
      On the camera you can see that the wounded are being beaten, it’s the girl’s friends who decided to finish off the victim !?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrmVmNc_mxs
      The shooting shows how two healthy gopnik knead one young man from the company Lotkova.
      Quote: Setrac
      No one used violence against her.

      Belousov attacked Lotkova in order to rob her of her injury (not visible in the frame), the acquaintance Lotkova dragged Belousov from her, then Belousov and Kurbanov began to beat this friend who defended the girl. I don’t know about you, but I see only gopniks here, and this is not Lotkova’s company.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 23 March 2013 22: 10
        +1
        I would also attack her when I saw a gun. And without any sentiment. Life is more expensive
        1. Passing
          Passing 23 March 2013 22: 43
          -1
          Logic is just atas! Well, just no words! Didn’t come up with the option that you can just stop scaring the poor girl?
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 24 March 2013 00: 11
            +1
            For me, a person with a pistol who can use it against me is by no means a "poor girl", but an adversary. And I, as a normal person, will never count on the sanity of such an individual.
    2. Passing
      Passing 23 March 2013 21: 28
      +2
      This is a meek intellectual Belousov
      Belousov

      This is a timid and humble Eroshkin:
      Eroshkin

      And this is the same criminal ghoul vile and cruelly preventing the innocent lambs from preaching the ideas of humanism to several eighteen-year-old lost souls. Particularly outraged by the fact that this devil attacked completely defenseless people who are in a severe stage of intoxication (3 ppm in the blood).
      Lotkova
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 23 March 2013 21: 45
        +4
        Do you think that this sweet girl has the right to finish off a lying person just because he has "wrong photos"?

        And you can take pictures of intellectuals from the company Lokotkova, finishing off with their feet the wounded Belousov lying on the floor. I hope they are all with harps and volumes of Andrei Bely.
        1. Passing
          Passing 23 March 2013 23: 12
          0
          First, your thesis about "finishing off" is the most natural fanning of hysteria, a technique from the arsenal of a witch hunter. What do you mean "finished off"? Did she cut her throat bloodthirsty, or at worst shot in the head? Shooting from trauma to the body is not considered a fatal act.
          Secondly, why are you (the judge, the prosecutor) indignant that the weak girl shot into the body of the lying one from fear, and you are ready to tear the poor girl to pieces for such bloodthirstiness, and the guy from her company kicking the head of the defeated enemy doesn’t cause such fierce emotions in you? How much did they give this guy for a blow to the lying one? Not at all? How so, because the fact of finishing a lying on you is a particularly serious crime. Why can everyone finish off, but not a girl?
          From photographs - you can believe in anything, but I believe my life experience and my common sense, and they tell me that the first two are aggressors. And it doesn’t matter to me whether the companions of the girl were murmuring, I don’t care about them at all, I care about the poor girl, from whom society and the state make a fiend of hell and a bloodthirsty maniac, and who they planted for a period that not every gopnik-ghoul gives . Nasty and disgusting.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 24 March 2013 00: 22
            +2
            Quote: Passing by
            Firstly, your thesis about "finishing off" is the most natural fanning of hysteria

            That is, as I understand it, finishing off the wounded is normal for you? And you consider all references to this fact "hysteria"?
            What kind of "self-defense" can we talk about here?

            Quote: Passing by
            Why can everyone finish off, but not a girl?

            And this is beyond the limits.
            Why are men finishing off planting, but this chicken is not allowed?

            Quote: Passing by
            And it makes no difference to me whether the companions of the girl were

            Not to me. Because there is clearly a clash of TWO drunken companies. And one of them was armed with an hatchet and firearms.
          2. Passing
            Passing 24 March 2013 02: 55
            -2
            Quote: Spade
            That is, as I understand it, for you to finish the wounded is normal?

            Your argument struck me in the very depths of my heart. Right now, a tear is straight from the unprecedented frame of tragedy! crying
            Wow, some nerds fought back the gopot, not even nerds, but some frail girl, it means one of the gopniks, so bloody, on his last gasp, and begs the intelligent bitch for mercy, but that one is not that, that evil and ruthless, and with a crooked grin, coolly and calculatingly, she finishes her victim. What gives the situation a special piquancy - the bitch used to "finish off" an object, in principle, not intended for murder, and finished off in a part of the victim's body, which is difficult to kill. Hence, the special cruelty and cynicism of this creature is obvious, all normal people finish off with a knife there, or with a combat pistol, and in the head, and this abnormal traumatic woman tried to kill with a shot in the body. Apparently she wanted to prolong the victim's agony, but there were not enough cartridges, the gopnik survived by a miracle. wink
            Quote: Spade
            Why are men finishing off planting, but this chicken is not allowed?

            Give specific examples when men were imprisoned for three years precisely for stumbling over a recumbent, which led to bodily injury that was not life-threatening and did not lead to disability. It is precisely for stumbling a recumbent, i.e. for "finishing off", and not for the fact of application. Yes, even just give an example when for an unintentionally broken jaw, arm, etc. gave three years. Do you have such facts?
            And once again I remind you that the girl did not have intent on applying heavy bodily. It is well known, i.e. it is considered by everyone that traumatism does not pierce the body, and to that there is a bunch of video with shooting for real people-experimenters. This is an obvious fact for anyone interested in the topic. The fact that traumatic ammunition pierced the body is an accident, force majeure, i.e. unintentional application of severe bodily. And given the fact that the girl does not constitute a public danger, to put her for the injury inflicted by the gopot, and even for the inflicted deliberately, this cannibalism of some kind, still draws the soul of frantic obscurantism.
            Quote: Spade
            Because there is clearly a clash of TWO drunken companies.

            The company of the gopniks was really drunk (the first examination speaks of a liter of alcohol), but the degree of intoxication of the girl’s company, and in fact the fact of their intoxication have not been established factually. We have speculations, against the facts, all over the world the choice is obvious, but not for our courts, and obviously not for you.
            Quote: Spade
            And one of them was armed with an hatchet and firearms.

            By your strange logic, does the presence of a weapon by a policeman also serve as an aggravating circumstance for this policeman in the event of a collision with criminals? And the presence of pepper spray is a confirmation of the guilt of a bitten, not a dog? I don’t even know what to object to here. For my logic is simple, everyday, and you probably have some special, prosecutorial.
          3. StolzSS
            StolzSS 24 March 2013 06: 21
            -1
            Honestly, I’m just dropping out. Did you see the guy with the knife ??? And I see him normally, he’s not a pro of knife fighting, but the knife he chose was the right one, it’s not glare, and it’s very rarely matte. I go to the cameras myself and I go with a similar one. Don’t you see that he is throwing weapons at her ??? You or pretend ??? What would you enter into a dialogue with him when he flies at you with a knife ??? What are you pestering for ?? For me it is so unfortunate that I wouldn’t have killed one com. Or are you such an integral person that he considers it normal to throw a knife at a girl ??? And I understand that you think on the principle of first overwhelming everyone, and then I get out somehow .....
    3. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 23 March 2013 21: 48
      0
      Passing, I repeat:
      Quote: Vladimirets
      1. Is a man wearing an ax adequate for self-defense in the city? To stop further questions, I emphasize: adequate? But is it possible for him to carry his law.
      2. Why shoot at a lying person for self-defense?
      1. Passing
        Passing 23 March 2013 22: 46
        0
        Answered above.
        By the way, sometimes I have a delay in displaying other people's posts, this is not the first time I've noticed such nonsense. either the site engine is buggy, or something else ... recourse
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 23 March 2013 23: 50
    +1
    Of course it’s right. What will sit down. And another very big question is who in this situation was a scum.
  • fenix57
    fenix57 23 March 2013 07: 22
    +7
    , How you can defend yourself and loved ones is said in the article of the Criminal Code "necessary defense" - for some reason, our courts (the most humane), and the prosecutor’s office take the opposite side of the defense.Strange why ... recourse
    1. Sasha 19871987
      Sasha 19871987 23 March 2013 07: 26
      +4
      everything is simple, they receive bonuses for each planted, and they plant them ....
      1. Goga
        Goga 23 March 2013 08: 10
        27
        sasha 18971987 - Alexander - it's not about bonuses, everything is much worse - in recent years, in pursuit of the creation of an "independent" judiciary, we in our country have increased salaries, pensions, etc. for judges. and as a result, we got a bunch of impudent bureaucrats who got drunk with impunity, whose arrogance goes beyond all boundaries. And this abomination that we have grown decides our fates.
        I am writing so harshly not because I myself got under the distribution, despite a fairly active lifestyle - I have no criminal record. They just recently commissioned a new building of the district court, and talked to the judiciary ... it’s hard to imagine such contempt for people, such turkey puffiness and confidence in their infallibility - we are like trash under their feet ... No.
        1. Sasha 19871987
          Sasha 19871987 23 March 2013 08: 32
          +5
          Goga, you say the truth, the truth ... sometimes I want to shoot these creatures, I am indifferent to hunting animals, but I would shoot these people, the funniest thing will not torment my conscience, for a good deed will
          1. Uncle
            Uncle 23 March 2013 13: 24
            +1
            Quote: sasha 19871987
            Sometimes I want to shoot these creatures, I am indifferent to hunting animals, but I would shoot these nonhumans, the funniest thing will not torment my conscience, for a good deed will be

            But by shooting this evil you sacrifice yourself. Such an equivalent balance does not suit.
        2. Sirocco
          Sirocco 23 March 2013 09: 31
          10
          Quote: Gogh
          we are in our country

          As in the cinema, not with us, but with you, not us, but you.)))) We are so a means to an end when voting in elections. We do not choose anyone to be a judge, which is a pity. At the expense of the lawlessness of PONTOVSKY, here he himself was "pleasantly" surprised. In the office there was a theft of my wallet with documents and money, they came, walked sluggishly, took fingerprints from the doors, and the briefcase, And, and took prints, for some reason, only from the technical staff. We spent a month, came to find out what the result was, and was taken aback, you don’t teach us how to work, the boy told me - pants with straps, and where did you get such a sum in your wallet, he would also figure it out. All kerdyk. Here you have the Pontov certification . I got the impression that the police are not held by criminals, and the criminals are not held cops. Between these two groups I put an equal sign.
          1. Normal
            Normal 23 March 2013 10: 51
            +2
            Quote: Sirocco
            go to the police, not taken place criminals, and to criminals, go not taken cops. Between these two groups I put an equal sign.
            Your opinion, it seems to me, is not without reason. drinks
        3. wax
          wax 23 March 2013 14: 35
          +3
          The judiciary should be independent of the executive, but it MUST BE DEPENDENT on the people. Nowadays, people are deprived of all the organs of public control, which is not good.
      2. Sirocco
        Sirocco 23 March 2013 09: 21
        +1
        Bonuses from the state, and bonuses from the defendants.
    2. saygon66
      saygon66 23 March 2013 11: 30
      +2
      -. ".. to take your life to the one who has no power for this ...!" Here is the answer "The power protects the right to execute and pardon, appropriated exclusively to itself!
      1. smile
        smile 23 March 2013 14: 27
        +1
        saygon66
        But doesn’t it seem to you that this is not characteristic of the authorities, but of the state in general ... to anyone. Or is it worth returning to the Stone Age?
        1. saygon66
          saygon66 23 March 2013 16: 31
          0
          -Let's go from the Stone Age: There is NO State ... There are always villains ... Well, no way without it! And the people chose among themselves peasants, who is more abrupt - to catch villains, who is smarter - to judge, well, the jury - for objectivity ... We catch ourselves, we judge ourselves, we hang ourselves ... if necessary. (Oh, the scheme is good!) And for small dirty tricks - to work, well, so that they do not run away - the guards! And so that their friends do not come running and not beaten off - the outer guard! And the rest threw themselves in food - so that they would not distract from the business ... And whoever disagrees with society - get out of the fence, there's nothing to muddy the waters! And now the power of the people flows smoothly .... flows smoothly ... into the state! All the attributes are present: the army, the court, the police, prisons ... And "the state is an apparatus for suppressing the personality!" - who said - I don't remember. Any power strives for the absolute - and achieves it in the form of a state ... But even without power, a war of all against all!
        2. Misantrop
          Misantrop 23 March 2013 17: 00
          +2
          Quote: smile
          this is not characteristic of the authorities, but of the state in general ... to anyone. Or is it worth returning to the Stone Age?

          Why so far. In the nightmarish year of 1937, scolded by the democrats, a fairly large part of the country's population had every right not only to own (store, carry) weapons, but also to use them if necessary. Officers, party and business workers, etc. Interestingly, if mountains of literature have been written about the "bloody terror" of the NKVD, then "about the terrible terror of the owners of firearms" you will not find a single line. Although they wore and used ...
          Grandmother once from a grandfather's time sheet of Nagan accidentally shot a cabinet at home lol Just in that very 1937. And nothing... request
  • Fox
    Fox 23 March 2013 07: 53
    +1
    so, as I expected: preparations for the introduction of a permit for
    KNO (judging by the materials of the VO), starting to read the article, I thought that I was writing a mattress (style of the syllable, as in rhetoric lessons) - and for sure! The article is like advertising: to inflate a problem, and then solve it with the help of a "new means".
  • Barmen
    Barmen 23 March 2013 08: 25
    +1
    negative Some nonsense. IMHO. The elementary instinct of self-preservation already speaks for itself. You’re a coward or something, the hundredth thing. And I have seen it many times, and I myself know how in a critical situation this instinct becomes so aggravated that the brain works as a computer. And actions, respectively. Not to be confused with heroism - breast embrasure. Then there is no way out, and scary ...
  • sedoii
    sedoii 23 March 2013 08: 35
    13
    Plus article. Most of all I liked the expression: " Refusal to resist a criminal was equated with the sin of suicide: "He who allows someone who has no power to take his life and does not resist the rapist is guilty of the sin of suicide, for the Lord commanded him to strive to prolong his days, and nature itself teaches everyone creation to defend itself. " "And it is not said here that one should arm oneself, but about the spiritual readiness to resist evil.
  • lewerlin53rus
    lewerlin53rus 23 March 2013 08: 35
    11
    For me, the only argument against the legalization of weapons is the lack of a weapon handling culture that has been completely lost during the years of Soviet power. Everything else is untenable. The criminal does not care if there is a law or not. If he needs a trunk, he will find it for himself in any case. And not only a short-barrel, but any, up to grenade launchers. (90th indicator of that). Well, there is still such a nuance as the debility of our officials, who will pervert and bring to absurdity any, the most necessary and good law.
    1. wax
      wax 23 March 2013 14: 46
      +2
      The issue of tradition and culture is very important. The fact is that having a weapon does not make a victim safer. If the criminal knows. that the victim is armed, he will simply be even more determined. The same is true for a potential victim - you must hit first if you feel a threat, but how often there will be errors in assessing the threat. With our behavior, authorizing a weapon will only lower its application. Of course, there are some cases when the weapon will protect the victim, for example, if you go on a deserted road, and a thug begins to chase after you, etc.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 23 March 2013 17: 03
        +1
        Quote: Wax
        The issue of tradition and culture is very important.
        Tell us about the ancient tradition of gun ownership in ... Moldavians. Or the Baltic states lol
  • Normal
    Normal 23 March 2013 08: 39
    +4
    Article plus. But I would not limit myself to the issue of legalization of the short-barrel. The problem raised in the article is much broader. As I understand it, the bottom line is that society, power and the individual, where consciously, where unconsciously guided by the wrong rules and regulations. The article points to this. The fullness of the fight against crime or the prerogative of individual protection should not be transferred to the police (or other government agencies).
    The structure can be assigned only part of the solution to the problem, albeit significant, but only part. Each member of the society does not have the right to relieve himself of responsibility for his safety only on the grounds that there is a structure with the same functions.
    In the same way, a citizen cannot rely on the fact that the state, power, will steadily and vigilantly observe his interests, take care of his well-being. A citizen does not just have a right, a citizen is obliged to fight for his rights and interests by all legal means.
  • AndreyAB
    AndreyAB 23 March 2013 08: 50
    +3
    Yes, in principle, our legislation now follows the Western principle of slaughtering and fooling Slavs, at schools in physical education classes preach badminton, for boys instead of fighting, I beat you on the street, a law created only for law-abiding people, a bandit has all rights, forbids defending oneself and rely only on the police and God forbid to have even a penknife with you, you smoothly flow into the category of the accused, I'm not talking about firearms, our rulers are afraid of their people, and instead of stuffing the scoundrel’s face, I’ll yell at you I’ll drag the ships.
  • amp
    amp 23 March 2013 08: 50
    +6
    What would be worth borrowing from the United States is their laws on the use of weapons. There, if someone got into your house or went to your site, and does not obey your requirements to leave, you can safely shoot and you will not be anything. Events like Sagra in the United States would be simply unthinkable. Yes, and Chechen fighters, it would be so simple that they didn’t go into which village, because the inhabitants even have assault rifles there.
    On the other hand, I do not urge right now to take and permit the carrying of weapons in the United States. It should be slow and gradual, but it should determine the ultimate goal - armed civil society.
    By the way, in the United States, for the murder, the deadlines are huge, and not from 6 years like ours. So if you walk and shoot left and right, you can spend the rest of your life in prison. A certain balance is needed here - on the one hand, there must be a weapon and the right to self-defense, on the other hand, the punishment for murder must be adequate.
    1. Dilshat
      Dilshat 23 March 2013 12: 35
      +1
      The current government doesn’t need citizens but slaves. More profit came from them. And so that the people do not have a ban on weapons (consider the ban on self-defense), migrant workers and crime will help them in this. Saiga and Kushchevka clearly showed this.
  • marshes
    marshes 23 March 2013 08: 57
    +3
    I advise you to look, they showed something like that on the Culture-Bowling channel for Columbina. The film is dedicated to the problem of free possession of weapons in the United States due to the increasing number of unmotivated killings every year. The impetus for the creation of the film, which was reflected in the title, was the tragedy at Columbine School in Columbine near Denver. Critically analyzing the problem of a large number of homicides in the USA, Moore asks the question: what is the reason for this? Rock'n'roll? Violence on television? A huge amount of weapons on hand? He shows that all this is not a reason, but only an impetus for the use of weapons. The reason, according to Moore, is in the atmosphere of fear escalated in American society, which distracts people from real problems - social and political - and provokes hatred for each other.
    Awards
    2003 - Oscar Award
    Best Documentary - Michael Moore, Michael Donovan
    2002 - Cannes Film Festival
    55th Anniversary Prize - Michael Moore
    2003 - Cesar Award
    Best Foreign Film - Michael Moore, Michael Donovan
    2002 - United States National Film Critics Award
    Best Documentary
    [edit] Nominations
    2002 - Cannes Film Festival
    Golden Palm Branch - Michael Moore
    1. rereture
      rereture 23 March 2013 10: 58
      0
      What was the impetus for the use of weapons at the Columbine school?
      Harassing some teenagers with others.
  • Denis
    Denis 23 March 2013 09: 09
    +3
    Feminists have been explaining to people for many years that rape is associated not only with the sexual needs of the rapist, but with his desire to subjugate and destroy the victim’s identity
    Without these monkeys, does anything happen there? And the rest is right, all the talk about the sharp increase in crime is nonsense. We are forbidden, but to the point who needs it and shoot without permission. Mad drug addicts are not up to acquisition, and if they assume that someone has a trunk at home they might try to think it’s worth whether to climb there
  • FC SKIF
    FC SKIF 23 March 2013 09: 10
    +4
    In wars ALWAYS defeat peoples for whom the collective is more important than the personal. The American personality model suggests selfishness. The egoist will not cover the pillbox with his body, the blazing plane will not direct the enemy. For him, I am much more expensive and therefore he will always lose to the desperate, passionate soldier.
    1. Dilshat
      Dilshat 23 March 2013 12: 40
      +1
      So it’s so, but such a country will have time to do much harm to other countries before dying. For example, the USA (modern Khazaria).
  • Corporal
    Corporal 23 March 2013 09: 22
    +8
    I believe that in the issue of the availability of weapons among the population, the path of Switzerland and Israel is to be taken.

    An army officer or reservist, this is your personal weapon for which you are responsible. That's the duty to the weapon in addition.
    1. Bosk
      Bosk 23 March 2013 11: 07
      +6
      But there’s an interesting idea: you want a weapon ... go to the army or at an army base to think of something like that ... so that a person gets a hand in the way of handling weapons and is checked for adequacy ...
    2. DimYang
      DimYang 23 March 2013 13: 09
      +2
      Quote: Efreytor
      An army officer or reservist, this is your personal weapon for which you are responsible


      I completely approve. yes
  • SPACE
    SPACE 23 March 2013 09: 26
    0
    Probably all the same it would be more correct if the weapon is allowed. And not only a short barrel, but also inclusive from AK and SVD to RPG and DShK, but wearing only on pistols. It is important to create the right system to prevent the entry and sale of weapons to the wrong people. People will begin to develop a sense of responsibility, confidence and respect, not immediately but gradually. Well, there will be problems for the first time, let's call it natural selection, after which I am sure crime will decrease at times, including the chaos of officials and cops. In addition, there are still pluses: Mobilization reserve of citizens with trunks and knowing how to own them. We also support the domestic manufacturer.
    Z.Y. What will happen to Serdyukov and other hermits and Berezovsky?
  • vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 23 March 2013 09: 29
    +5
    In a society like ours, when there are those who are always right, regardless of the situation, there is no point in legalizing firearms for the population. Since you used it for protection, but against whom? if against someone from the "elite" then at best you will get life, at worst you will simply be killed. As a result, someone will use the right to shoot, and not always use it for defense, and someone will think whether it is worth doing it or is it better to hide. As long as our law protects not those who are attacked, but those who attack, the use of weapons as a result of the execution of the law will be directed against us. Agree, almost everyone has seen a situation when they beat a person on the street and everyone walks by, not because they cannot fight back or help the weak, just because you can get a term for such help. I cannot understand what kind of thought we have where they cannot pass a law on human protection.
    1. Mihaylo Tishayshiy
      Mihaylo Tishayshiy 23 March 2013 14: 21
      +2
      I agree with you in many ways, but
      Quote: vladsolo56
      In a society like ours, when there are those who are always right, regardless of the situation, there is no point in legalizing firearms for the population.

      It is the legalization of "short-handed" that will make it possible for those "who are always right" to understand that they were wrong, even at the last moment of their lives. But other "eternal rights" will understand that neither security, nor personal protective equipment, nor "rightness" in court will protect their lives from the "eternal wrong" who is humiliated by them. They will not understand this right away, time must pass. Some of the "eternally wrong" will sit down. But if you don't start, then this time will never come at all.
      Quote: vladsolo56
      and someone will think whether it is worth doing or better to hide.

      This is a matter for everyone personally (from the degree of dignity).
      Quote: vladsolo56
      I can’t understand what kind of thought we have where they cannot pass the law on human protection.

      The Duma can quickly "concoct" such a law. But who, besides yourself, will fulfill it? Make every second a police officer and assign every first one for personal protection? Allowing short-barreled weapons in many ways can solve this problem. BUT !!! There is already a quick "cooking" will not do. It is necessary not only to develop a balanced, well-thought-out law, but also to change the entire system of authorization and control in order to exclude weapons from falling into the hands of psychos and drug addicts and to cut off the possibility of bribery (revive and improve the PFL system, introduce criminal liability with real terms of punishment for issuing false certificates etc.). And here not only the deputies need to get involved in the work, but also officials throughout the country, but they least of all want this (there was an article on this topic yesterday)
  • radio operator
    23 March 2013 09: 47
    +7
    It seems to me that a man, in essence, is the protector of the family and the country. A defender can have a weapon.
    We protect the country with arms in hand, and the family is a small country and it has the same right to be protected.
    I think so.
    1. AK-47
      AK-47 23 March 2013 11: 25
      +1
      Quote: radio operator
      the family is a small country and it has the same right to be protected. I think so.

      I think so too. There is no hope for mentors and the judiciary.
      Weapons should be in every family.
      1. StolzSS
        StolzSS 24 March 2013 06: 45
        +1
        Not in everyone. But only in the one where there is one who can and is ready to apply it in case of emergency.
  • erased
    erased 23 March 2013 09: 56
    +2
    The article is imported, but in this case, applies to Russia.
    That a person has the right to protect life, interests, health and other things. even the law is enshrined in the constitution. There are no options. That the Ministry of Internal Affairs spit on citizens is also a fact. Regarding the view of the courts, the prosecutor's office and others like them - everything is simple here. Authorities a strong, confident person who does not allow to encroach on his dignity and honor is not needed. Need an amorphous electorate, a herd of sheep. Therefore, they spread rot for those who dared to defend themselves or their relatives, who rebuffed robbers and bandits. The fish has long gone rotten from the head and it is impossible to expect reasonable actions from this head.
    This is shitty reality. Alas.
    1. Grishka100watt
      Grishka100watt 23 March 2013 15: 11
      0
      Do you want to be a cool man - GO DO BOXING! Does anyone bother you?

      Weapons will be given to you in the war.
      1. saygon66
        saygon66 23 March 2013 17: 30
        +1
        -Sure! Everyone who has a solid, dumb, item on their shoulders is armed! And, the harder and dumber the subject - the more dangerous! So let's drink for disarmament!
        laughing
  • fero
    fero 23 March 2013 09: 57
    +3
    Even having on hand "non-lethal" weapons like traumatic weapons in Russia there are already so many precedents about their illegal use that I quietly go nuts ... in short, I am against legal storage, and even more so wearing "short-barrels" by civilians.
    Really shoot people each other. Our society is not mentally healthy, completely inadequate around. But there is no real mechanism to prevent such scumbags from arming ... and it cannot be with such corruption.
    1. Bosk
      Bosk 23 March 2013 11: 10
      +2
      And you will go through statistics on the misuse of say axes ... kitchen knives, etc. etc. , I think, too, the reason awakens a bit to go nuts ....
      1. Castor oil
        Castor oil 23 March 2013 14: 41
        -3
        Quote: Bosk
        about misuse let's say axes
      2. fero
        fero 23 March 2013 23: 25
        -1
        And where does the knives and axes? .. what kind of demagogy? The social danger of firearms is much higher than cold weapons. Strictly speaking, of course, I am not familiar with complete statistics, but subjectively, with a knife or an ax, one victim is most often killed. A short-barrel is much more dangerous in this regard, you can put more than a dozen. In my opinion, in some countries there is a restriction on multiple-charge weapons, for example, for self-defense you do not need an automatic weapon with a 30-round horn, and a revolver for 6 shots is enough.
        1. StolzSS
          StolzSS 24 March 2013 06: 54
          -1
          Yes, what can statistics say for themselves. Over the past 2 years, I used a knife for self-defense 5 times. And I know in the city at least 3 more people who also used the knife for these couple of years .... this is all stupid demagogy, just give the opportunity to equalize the chances, otherwise some people scream, go go boxing if you want to be a cool man. And I’m already cool enough for me even though I am a bespectacled electrician. Just give me the right to carry a gun for self-defense, and there it will be obvious whether he will shoot or not. And I think it will fire if situations like those 5 that were with the knife are repeated ... As for multi-charge. Well, I don’t ask for a machine gun. Give me a pistol of 8-10 rounds in my opinion 7.62 or 9-18 is enough for self-defense ??? You are not going to wear magnum 45 ???
    2. Passing
      Passing 23 March 2013 16: 06
      0
      Quote: fero
      Even with a "non-lethal" weapon like traumatic in Russia, there are already so many precedents about its illegal use that I quietly go nuts ...

      Instead of listening to hysterical screams from a zombie man about the monstrous danger of traumas, they would have known specific statistics - on average, ~ 10 people die from traumas per year.
  • zennon
    zennon 23 March 2013 10: 02
    +2
    Quote: Sirocco
    Quote: Normal
    For the infliction of grievous bodily harm, she received more than Mirzaev for the murder.

    How so Mirzaev, did not give anything, Dead with braids stand, and silence. or do we have privileges for LCN and champions?

    What did you not know? Khachiks can do whatever they want. The policy of the "sarty grinder." As for the personal short-barrel: I do not agree with the writer Weller in everything, but I am ready to quote this statement. from a slave having the right to personal weapons. "
    1. not good
      not good 23 March 2013 10: 37
      +3
      The policy of imposing a Western model of tolerance in Russia is already yielding unexpected results, the cops and courts are beginning to treat Slavs who are even involved in domestic conflicts in favor of Caucasian nationalities. I have never been a nationalist, but here you start to think or the government deliberately aggravates the situation, or not knows what he is doing.
  • understudy
    understudy 23 March 2013 11: 23
    +3
    According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, over the past five years, 65 people have been killed from traumatic weapons, despite the fact that the population has about 2 million barrels of "weapons of limited destruction." This is the data for February last year.

    Here is a small excerpt from an article by a rather famous author ...
    “According to the official data of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, as of December 1, 2004, 178 344 units of firearms and military equipment were stolen from the country's law enforcement agencies (or simply“ lost ”), including 66 679 rifled weapons, of which 23 451 machine gun, 25 pistols, 916 machine guns, 1 grenade launchers and 927 portable rocket launchers.
    I specifically asked - how much does a gun cost on the black market today? 2 000 cu "Makarov", 5 cu - “Colt” and 000 - “Glock”. Delivery time - a couple of days!
    And today in the hands of thousands of such unregistered trunks. But something does not often shoot this weapon. Citizens, figuring out the relationship between themselves, prefer ordinary kitchen knives and everything that comes to hand, but not combat pistols and rifles!
    In the United States, in those states where citizens are allowed to carry weapons covertly, the overall level of violent crimes is BELOW 18% compared with states where weapons are prohibited. The murder rate in the “armed” states is BELOW by 33%, robberies - by 37%. In states where weapons are forbidden to carry, 289,7 killings per 100 population are committed. In states where secret carrying of weapons is permitted, 000 cases of killings per 183,1 population. More than 100 cases less! Police statistics show that owners of firearms are much less likely to be victims of robberies and attacks. It is curious that the use of firearms as a means of self-defense quite rarely ends with the shedding of blood. On average, in only one percent of cases the offender is injured and in a tenth of a percent of cases, he is killed.
    Therefore, I am for the legalization of rifled short-barreled weapons.
    A law-abiding citizen should be equal in rights with those who despise the law and have long been armed to the teeth..."
  • understudy
    understudy 23 March 2013 11: 31
    +1
    The article is not indisputable, but the phrase that "refusal to resist a criminal was equated with the sin of suicide:" The one who allows someone who does not have the power to take his life and does not resist the rapist is guilty of the sin of suicide, for the Lord commanded he strives to prolong his days, and nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself "to some extent reconciles me with religion.

    Well, about the court ... I hope that the girl’s sentence will be changed, but the case has received wide publicity.
    Nda ... Gainullina, Radjabov, Wafin in favor of Kurbanov. Maybe this is not happening in Russia, but in the looking-glass behind some?
  • saygon66
    saygon66 23 March 2013 11: 49
    +2
    - In the matter of self-defense, the main thing is the inner readiness of a person to inflict pain and injury on the attacker, or even completely destroy him. Without such readiness, any methods of hand-to-hand combat, any types of weapons are useless ... The question is how to separate the readiness for self-defense from the desire to "kill" all the bad guys ...
  • AlexMH
    AlexMH 23 March 2013 12: 38
    +1
    If we continue and implement the thoughts outlined in the article, then we come to a society of the Caucasian type, where everyone walks with a weapon, are ready to use it at any moment for the slightest reason, houses are like fortresses, and women sit at home and nowhere without men. do not come out. Moreover, in such a society inevitably appear, relatively speaking, "slaves" who do not carry weapons and who do not feel sorry for. Like in medieval Japan, a samurai wanted to cut off the head of a peasant - he cut it down, and the word "peasant" was offensive, because he has no right to carry weapons .. The whole idea of ​​modern society is precisely that a person should be protected by the law, and not he himself, at least in high-intensity conflicts. Otherwise, here we will have handfuls (because you can't fight off alone) pumped up armed guys and look for someone to defend against, and all the other citizens (most) will sit at home and tremble. Actually, in some places it already is, but I personally do not see any reason for pride in pumped-up citizens with weapons in their bosoms.
    1. Mihaylo Tishayshiy
      Mihaylo Tishayshiy 23 March 2013 18: 50
      +1
      Here you just described the society where only the elected ("samurai"), bandits ("pumped up armed guys") do not need any permits to own weapons, and the rest - "peasants" (in our opinion, cattle) are prohibited from having weapons (like now). If you continue and implement the thoughts outlined in the article, then you need to move away from this society. You either did not understand the author of the article, or you express your thoughts in a strange way, turning everything upside down.
      Quote: AlexMH
      ..The whole idea of ​​modern society is precisely that a person should protect the law, and not he himself, in any case in high-intensity conflicts.

      Sorry, but the law will never protect your daughter, if they try to rape her, he may only be able to punish the criminals after ... if she remains alive and can prove anything in court. Maybe if she had a gun, she wouldn't be able to defend herself. But she will have at least some chance that you want to deprive her. Or do you prefer that she remained a "Japanese peasant", endured everything, and if she remains alive, then the "samurai" may scold the criminals for her. Personally, I don't want my daughter like that, and she, even though she is 1,5 m tall at 21, is not a "Japanese peasant" in spirit, although you want to make her that way, depriving her of her last chance.
      1. Grishka100watt
        Grishka100watt 25 March 2013 13: 59
        0
        But this is a typical liberal look! And the fact that, due to the ability to use weapons, is guaranteed (!) There will be death, and doesn’t it always bother you in such a situation (!)?

        Or are you worried about the rape of one girl more than death, albeit bad, though drunk, guys when they shoot at each other? (IN OTHER SITUATIONS, I emphasize for those who are in the tank)
        After all, the pistols will be mainly with them. And they will be used mainly by men (you can have no doubt).
        So, I repeat the question: do not you worry that in the country citizens will die where it may not be, and in crowds you will not know who is going where and why?
  • Colonel
    Colonel 23 March 2013 12: 49
    +2
    One hundred fifty pluses article
  • Bort radist
    Bort radist 23 March 2013 13: 04
    +1
    Quote: vladsolo56
    if against someone from the "elite" then at best you will get life, at worst you will simply be killed.

    Only the "elite" cannot be bought out, and you can’t ransack it. They are only afraid of this.
  • Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 23 March 2013 13: 30
    +1
    Avtyr, why are these tests? We have long been ready to commit suicide ...
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 23 March 2013 13: 35
    -2
    Another verbal diarrhea of ​​oruzhanov, who think that during an attack they will generally have a chance to pull out their pistol. Mounting the back of the skull and your pistol will be among the prey of the criminal, and you will be buried.

    If the threat of encountering the resistance of someone scared, then there would be no wars in the world, but in reality it only prompts to look for ways to circumvent this resistance. In the case of criminals, this is killing the victim before she realizes something. About the woman, the raped woman is generally silent, about this:

    One very confident middle lady told me the following story. She went to do martial arts. And, apparently, she was talented, because everything she did very well - hooking, hitting, throwing. In the women's group ... And then she was given an average man for training. Not to say to a giant. And not to say that he resisted. That is, he did not resist at all. Just stood. And she was trying to hook up.
    “It was then that I realized the mythological nature of these calls for women to learn self-defense,” she told me. - Learn not to study - one hell who needs it will rape. So I studied. She did a good cut on her goods. And as it came to the man ... His hairy limb for some reason completely did not want to hook up. His body did not want to fall when I tried to throw or hit. I poked and pushed this body, as if a bookcase. And the man was not to say that he was much healthier than me - just a little higher, a little denser ... He tried not to push me much. But I suddenly thought that if he half-heartedly gives me a fist in the snout, I will crawl on the mat and collect my teeth.
    Indeed, it is not enough for a woman to learn martial arts in order to defend herself against a rapist: the average man can easily cope with the average woman. Practice shows that even an unprepared average man copes with an average trained athlete. And it’s better not to anger him, otherwise it will be worse.

    (c) Novikov "The End of Feminism".

    In such a situation, a hidden carry knife could help, in fact it is in any situation the most effective weapon, but not the barrel. The firearm generally exists precisely for those applications where it is possible to have it ready at all times (military operations, hunting), and not to hide it on the street, hoping that at a critical moment they will not give up the long spring tension and in general it will be possible to pull out the weapon and remove from the fuse, provided that the cartridge is already in the barrel.
  • воронов
    воронов 23 March 2013 13: 50
    +2
    In Russia, it is high time to allow citizens to use firearms
  • Castor oil
    Castor oil 23 March 2013 14: 39
    +2
    If you become a victim of a robbery or rape, you will find that it is very difficult to call the police while you are being robbed, even if you have a cell phone with you.
    1. Castor oil
      Castor oil 23 March 2013 14: 44
      +2
      _____________________________________
  • Grishka100watt
    Grishka100watt 23 March 2013 15: 09
    -2
    The article is provocative.
    Everything seems to be correct, but in the end morality is somehow illogical!
    In order to stand up for oneself one can and must train strength of mind and physical strength in the gym!

    But where does the firearm come in? !! Well, people buy weapons, and where there used to be, sorry, piz№yulin, there will be a bullet hole !!!!!!!
    1. Grishka100watt
      Grishka100watt 24 March 2013 16: 00
      -1
      You can minus as much as you want, if you can't do without a nifig, then my advice is: if you want to walk along the gateways with a gun, cut down the front sight.
  • Grishka100watt
    Grishka100watt 23 March 2013 15: 21
    -1
    Why do some people need a gun to feel like a man?

    A person without self-esteem cannot dispose of weapons!

    There will be corpses! A lot of corpses all over the country, when drunk in bars and on the roads will be naughty at all that they do not like!
    1. StolzSS
      StolzSS 24 March 2013 07: 22
      +1
      I agree they will be naughty. And now they grumble at a satellite in a nearby town in a cafe, a company broke into a cafe and started firing from saigas, it seems, they’ve been sorted out for a year already .... although there are witnesses and killed and video recordings ....

      About the gym you smack nonsense. The gym will not prepare you to shoot a man or cut him with a knife. You yourself do not drive a knife into a living person until you understand me. For women, your gym is nonsense and fiction. Purely from personal experience among my acquaintances there is only one young lady who can hang me one on one, so she is 10 kilos heavier than me 5 centimeters higher and a master of sports in judo. But a revolver with 6 rounds of ammunition will allow in theory a woman in case of a threat to her life or dignity to resist one or two men. About traumatic or other permitted means of defense you tell tales to children, they are often ineffective ....
      1. Grishka100watt
        Grishka100watt 24 March 2013 15: 52
        -1
        Excuse me, what is this nonsense?
        If you can’t stand up for yourself - go boxing, or swing to look big, usually they don’t attack the big ones.

        You don’t need a weapon, I tell you. Fighting laziness is your priority.
        Do not let your woman alone in the gateway.
  • Ser_ega
    Ser_ega 23 March 2013 16: 41
    -2
    He is not needed, traumatism is enough to defend himself, which was confirmed by the incident with the girl described above.
    1. rereture
      rereture 24 March 2013 01: 33
      +2
      I want to say a few words about shooting sports, it’s very difficult for us to do it, not every city has a shooting range, pneumatics is not serious, but a short barrel for constant exercises would not hurt.
  • Zomanus
    Zomanus 24 March 2013 06: 51
    0
    In Russia, the basic rule for self-defense is "get everyone down and get out of it quickly." It is believed that since you did not allow yourself to be crippled, then you are stronger and more dangerous for society. Accordingly, you are to blame. And do not care that you were one against three. Then all the more dangerous. The girl had to leave as soon as possible, and not wait for the police. This case proves that the police are not your assistant in self-defense.
    1. StolzSS
      StolzSS 24 March 2013 07: 25
      0
      I completely agree with you brother good but she could not blame alas ... the guy was cut once, two frames, three witnesses ...