Military Review

Pistols and revolvers - law-abiding citizens

237
Without the legalization of civil weapons in Russia it is impossible to protect personal freedom, family, property


There is a view that the restriction on the acquisition and use of weapons infringes the rights of law-abiding citizens. Criminals, on the other hand, are not inconvenienced in the established system of control and prevention of violent offenses. The military-industrial complex weekly publishes an interview with the head of the Right to Arms movement, Maria Butina, to some extent reflecting the views of a significant part of society.

- Maria Valerievna, the weekly Military Industrial Courier covers the work of the defense industry complex in Russia. The publication is intended primarily for representatives of the military economy, entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers, gunsmith masters. He is read with interest by military professionals and weapons lovers. The movement “The Right to Arms”, which you have the honor to lead, is interesting to many. Please tell us about the appearance of the movement, its goals and objectives.

- Our organization originated in August 2011 as a community of civilian weapons enthusiasts, starting with ordinary get-togethers at a restaurant in Moscow. Then, realizing that we needed to act, we began to conduct our first street actions and field training in shooting galleries and shooting ranges, and like-minded people in the regions came up. As a result, over the year of our work, we have an organization of several hundred like-minded people in more than 25 regions of the country, and 28 – 29 of October 2012 held the first all-Russian congress to strengthen their ranks and form legitimate governing bodies of the organization.

The main purpose of the movement, as the name implies, is to protect the right of citizens to weapons. There are innumerable meaningless legislative prohibitions, bureaucratic barriers, arbitrariness, slander and prejudice. For example, there is a myth that a legal weapon does not participate in self-defense and does not hold back, but allegedly, on the contrary, provokes violent crime. Legal prohibitions and public prejudices that impede the normal realization of the fullness of our right to arms, we try to at least restrain us from being taken away from even what we have. And since the best defense is attack, we are also conducting offensive, educational, human rights work, so that this right to the weapon is not only not reduced, but also expanded.

This results in various practical areas of our work: legal and public advocacy and advice to those who were forced to resort to the necessary defense or simply plan to buy weapons, increase weapon culture - organizing practical and theoretical seminars, classes and tournaments with those who already have personal weapons or just planning to buy it. Work with the authorities, the expert community, the media, public opinion, aimed at informing the parties that legal weapons are much more beneficial to society than harm, and that citizens ’right to arms should be expanded rather than collapsed.

- What media has the movement? How interesting is it to the press, radio and TV all over Russia?

- We have an organization website, our periodically published newsletter and newsletter, thousands of like-minded communities and social media broadcasts. The main informational work, of course, is conducted through other - regional, international and all-Russian mass media, with which we are trying to work most closely, because this is how we can convey our point of view to a wide audience. In order to achieve this, we create various informational occasions, hold public events - pickets and rallies on our set of problems, which attracts the attention of the media and authorities. Some consider this a vulgar self-advertisement, but in fact without this informational work it is impossible to convey your point of view to a wide audience.

Pistols and revolvers - law-abiding citizens

Unfortunately, the arms community in Russia suffers from a certain self-isolation, which largely determines the existing state legislation, in particular, the Law on Advertising, which effectively prohibits the widespread promotion of civilian weapons, which means that it does not become so widespread as in the United States. where up to half of the families belong to the armed community. In Russia, those are about ten times smaller. These people are artificially driven into information isolation, slandered and limited in their rights. Although in many respects it is on them in Russia that the rule of law and law and order rests. The government, the media and society should not argue that “if the gun is hanging, it means that it will definitely shoot”, and declare that “the more weapons, the more crime,” but on the contrary, to encourage these law-abiding and sane people in every way. After all, they can, if anything, come to the rescue before the police arrive at the unarmed victim of unlawful acts. It is no coincidence that in the United States, with the help of civilian weapons, from 100 thousands to 2,5 million violent crimes are prevented annually.

Since advertising of civilian weapons in Russia is actually allowed only within the framework of a highly specialized, already armed audience, this leads to the very small number and isolation of the weapon community. Five million owners of civilian weapons in Russia are, of course, not a little, but not a lot. If we consider that cars, for example, have about 30 millions of citizens, although the weapon is much more affordable and more important subject. Indeed, unlike many other technological devices, a weapon can really save lives and does so quite massively. This specificity of the legal field in Russia leads to the fact that people in the masses learn about civilian weapons only from criminal records. Cases of successful use of weapons are less likely to become information events, because they tried to attack you, you showed, even if you had a traumatic gun, and you managed to prevent a crime before it began, the federal information channels.

Our experience shows that even the egregious cases of armed self-defense, when a husband fought off an attack on his pregnant wife with a weapon, even such incidents are not interesting for journalists. Well, he beat off and beat off - there were no mountains, rivers of blood and dozens of corpses, which means that the audience is not interested. But drunk shooting or a frustrated father of the family who shot relatives with civilian weapons is a hot news, it is snapped up by all the media, as a result, people, even the officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who do not lead, and cannot keep relevant statistics, have the illusion that civilian weapons are used only for criminal purposes. Thousands of similar cases without the use of weapons seem to have no meaning. Hacking a family with an ax or strangling with a pillow is typical for domestic by-living, unfortunately, and the same actions with weapons immediately turn a crime into an all-Russian event, although every year thousands of people are killed in the country from 14 to 50. If each of these cases were so covered in the media as weapon incidents, then kitchen knives, pans and rolling pins would at least be subject to compulsory licensing for storing a house without the right to take them outside.

We also try to counteract this distortion of the information space, often successfully. Even federal TV channels are interested in an alternative point of view and are ready to show it, if there is someone ready to communicate it. Therefore, you can periodically see me on the main TV channels. Any regional press covering the topics of weapons and security also has a need for this alternative point of view, but now there is simply no one to voice it and everything is limited to the usual reasoning of departmental officials and the humanitarian intelligentsia divorced from reality about how bad everything is and how dangerous weapons are, completely ignoring its main useful features.

To reverse this trend, we are trying to create an extensive All-Russian structure with a representative office in each locality. Otherwise, people will live in captivity of dangerous illusions, which, by the way, turn into real deaths. After all, less legal weapons means more illegal and higher violent crime, which does not meet the repulse of respectable citizens, who are an absolute majority in any society. But today this is the majority of the weak, and we are trying to change the situation, making it stronger.

- Who came into motion? Are there many bright, interesting, accomplished, famous and influential people in it? Representatives of what political forces take part in it?

- All of us are united by the fact that we value our right to arms and see the lack of viability of the rights to property, life and freedom without it. Someone appreciates the weapon as a hunter, someone as a sports shooter, someone as a collector, and someone keeps it for self-defense. As a rule, these different aspects of civilian weapons overlap and complement each other in each individual person. There are those who do not own weapons, but still actively support us, because they understand that the owner of legal civilian weapons is like a policeman or soldier, he will protect you or your loved ones in difficult times, if he is near. After all, you personally can not always be with them. Of course, among all there are people who are crazy and abusing their abilities, but such an insignificant minority, and as a result of the actions of Evsyukov or another aggressive deserter, they do not draw conclusions about the need to disarm the army or the police.

Basically, the members of our movement are men, since only they are called up for military service in Russia, because such historical specialization of the sexes, because, unfortunately, most women still believe that their safety issues do not concern them, or they have not yet become involved in such fascinating activities as shooting sports or hunting. Although everywhere, of course, there are exceptions, but sometimes this feature of female logic comes to completely egregious cases. For example, one woman killed a rapist with a knife, but she’s sure that she doesn’t need a weapon, because she can’t cope with it. Another husband saved her and the children from the attack of a gang of robbers on the same taiga outskirts, but she still claims that she is against weapons in the house. It would be funny if it were not so sad.

Older people, for obvious reasons, are also rarely engaged in our organization, because they have their own, as it seems to them, more pressing problems. Even if they take to the streets, they will rather demand an increase in pensions, not new rights and freedoms for themselves, for which they, of course, cannot be blamed for their blatantly low standard of living.

Poor, declassed elements, which usually form the main asset of various radical and even quite moderate political organizations, are also rarely found in our topic, because it still attracts already accomplished and prosperous individuals who do not want to ruin anything to the ground, but want more rights for themselves and responsibility, which is what to protect and what to lose. Any person in principle and a member of our movement in particular is bright and interesting in his own way. If we talk about some well-known personalities, leaders of public opinion, then at the first All-Russian Congress of our movement as guests of honor were, for example, famous actor and screenwriter Ivan Okhlobystin, former Minister of Economic Policy of Russia Andrei Nechaev, Right Cause party leader Andrei Dunayev, a number of less famous figures - our associates. A unique feature of the organization is that it is supported by literally all political spectra. Especially, if you take into account not careerists, who situationally stick to one or another political force and ideology, but intellectuals. This is not to mention the extra-parliamentary parties and especially political forces in a broad ideological sense. After all, a person who considers his people unworthy of the right to arms cannot be either a patriot, or a liberal, or a nationalist, or a conservative, or a socialist. Civilian weapons strengthens state stability. Armed peoples, where they exist, be it Switzerland or the United States, where they are less likely to encounter mass riots, revolutions and external intervention, than societies weakened by their defenselessness, and therefore unstable. It is civilian weapons that are a great leveler, allowing even the poorest person, unable to hire bodyguards or settle down behind a high fence of an elite residential complex, to rely on security. Well, and so on. Holistic, consistent perception of any political ideology leads people to understand the importance of the right of citizens to weapons. Only people who, in principle, do not think about it and are engaged only in populism and playing on the fears of the crowd, can overlook this.

- Experts believe that, for the most part, the leaders of the country officially still have a negative attitude to the idea of ​​legalizing civilian self-defense military weapons. You invited to the constituent congress of representatives of the presidential administration and the government? If so, what was their reaction?

- The country's leaders only stated that they were against the free sale of weapons to the public. The vast majority of our organization members agree with them on this, and no one is now talking about canceling the license for civilian weapons and eliminating strict state control over this area. The ruling party also does not have a single clear position on this score, for example, one of the deputies of this party in the State Duma took the initiative to give journalists the right to wear real military pistols, since this profession in Russia is associated with increased risk (as, indeed, thousands of other professions who do not have their own deputies in parliament). Senior officials are afraid to contradict public opinion, which they themselves formed, because it is known that the majority of the population has a negative attitude to the legalization of pistols. It does not take into account, however, that 60 percent of Russians are not even aware that for almost years 20 has been able to acquire long-barreled smooth-bore weapons for self-defense purposes. People are very poorly informed, even senior officials. For example, the well-known story of what embarrassment these people fell into when they decided to fight the supposedly unlicensed sale of traumatic weapons. Although it was rather strictly regulated before the law was toughened up, the number of crimes associated with it was decreasingly small as it was and is. But there was a huge monopoly training business to obtain a license for traumatic weapons.

I think that the negative or rather skeptical stance of top officials regarding civilian weapons with occasionally arising very dubious bills of a restraining plan is not related to the fact that these people have some kind of formed and conscious point of view on this matter (still quite specific and narrow-profile, not the scale of the wide mind of the sovereign husbands), but primarily because they were captured by those limited flows of information and attitudes that were sent to them by departmental lobbyists ie, a purely commercial interest in maintaining a huge and very corrupt market premium weapons, private security, sale of gray schemes "left" of weapons from warehouses and so on. d. It involved a lot of money and hardware game, but not political or ideological positions.

We are trying to break through this information blockade with our modest efforts, although we have not yet managed to get to the “body” of the representatives of the presidential administration or the government. But amid the development of an active industrial policy and the military-industrial complex, as well as as part of a campaign for the fight against corruption that is gaining momentum, I hope that this persistent vicious stance on civilian weapons will soon be broken. Now the government has undergone quite significant changes, the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs has also improved significantly, so perhaps the situation on this issue will improve in the near future and the updated management will be able to take a fresh look at the problem, separating the wheat from the chaff.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
237 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. xetai9977
    xetai9977 24 July 2013 18: 12 New
    +2
    Are you sure that the crime rate will not increase at times? Have drug addicts, drunks, or just psychos disappeared? What, innocent people do not die in the USA, although possession of weapons is allowed there.?
    1. vadimN
      vadimN 24 July 2013 18: 22 New
      44
      According to official US statistics, the vast majority of cases of deaths, mass executions, etc. occurs just in legislative zones free of weapons. those. where under the law it is forbidden to be with weapons even with a license. According to the laws of most states, these are cinemas and other cultural institutions, all educational institutions (with the exception of several universities), places of mass events, etc. all sorts of psychopathic arrows go there, for they know that the law-abiding people there are unarmed and defenseless.
      .. Something has never been reported that some kind of "shooter" killed the people in any rocker bar, where every second with a weapon ...
      ... By the way, in the same fucking USA there are official statistics of cases when law-abiding armed citizens stop criminals. Only they don’t show it to us, because it does not fit into the concept, according to which we are persistently convinced that we are scum, stupid people and we can’t control ourselves, we will definitely shoot ourselves.

      I would advise the advocates of the idea of ​​"immaturity" of people to arms to stop considering their people as unreasonable idiots.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 24 July 2013 21: 30 New
        +4
        It is worth giving an example of the execution in the town of Aurora, where it was carried out just in the city, where, in contrast to state laws, legalization was forbidden to be worn.
      2. Troitsky
        Troitsky 24 July 2013 23: 04 New
        +1
        For example, an article by one I think is a smart person. And I agree with her. please read and write who thinks what. She is short.
        http://hardingush.livejournal.com/24215.html
        1. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 25 July 2013 00: 41 New
          +9
          Quote: Trinity
          For example, an article by one I think is a smart person. And I agree with her. please read and write who thinks what. She's short.http: //hardingush.livejournal.com/24215.html

          Set of myths and horror stories.
          Well, to catch up:
          1. Mikado
            Mikado 25 July 2013 11: 13 New
            +3
            Regarding the picture, it’s fair to say that you won’t be able to carry all this with you everywhere, only at the shooting range (hunting) and back, because it’s inconvenient. The gun is another matter, and you can quietly carry it to the bar while drinking, both in the restaurant and in the courtyard on the bench.
          2. Masterzserg
            Masterzserg 25 July 2013 12: 44 New
            +1
            Quote: Rakti-Kali
            Well, to catch up:
            is a motivator for shkolota. What can be there? Is wearing permitted? Only the moron thinks that it is necessary to legalize firearms, in conditions of universal moral decay. Yes, if you give everyone a pistol, over time they will restore order, but the period of guidance will be stained with blood. All smart ones such as romance, statistics from America lead, and through what did they go through? Our nineties, only stretched into a century. Do you want a pistol in your pocket at that price? Are you sure that you can get it in time, decide to shoot? Or someone will decide earlier? And why can't a drunk come up and shoot in the back of the head? Don't you really think that he will think about "and they can shoot me"? He is knee-deep in the sea. Are you sure that a child won't take a gun from a drunken dad and shoot half of the class? The USA, with its statistics, has gone through this and is still going through it now. Their order is higher, but at what cost? Are you ready to pay with your generation and the generation of your children for order (which is not one hundred percent by the way) in the future? Just imagine, don't fantasize like Vanka on the stove: "Oh, if only they gave me, they only allowed me, wow, I would heal!" Think that the child will not return from school, that a stray bullet can fly into the window and drop your eggs on your floor. It will not be there somewhere, but everything is with you, here and now. Otherwise, you probably think that with the appearance of the pistol, you will simultaneously turn into Rimbaud, rolled over your back, jumped and defended the innocent with three shots, everything: a hero, a medal, a monument. Don't be stupid.
        2. vadimN
          vadimN 25 July 2013 11: 03 New
          +3
          A standard set of unconvincing arguments ...
          Here is a simple example for you to refute one of the theses of this article: In St. Petersburg, almost all stations at the entrance have metal detectors. And with them there are policemen.
          The frames ring every second, because there are few people who do not have metal, especially when commuting. The policemen were tired of this ringing for a long time and I have never seen anyone react to it at least somehow.
          And now the main thing: I go to the dacha almost all year round on weekends from Finland Station. I have a good dacha, a forest, a river ... and the place is sparsely populated, almost deaf. And therefore, every weekend I have on my belt the legitimate "GrandPower T-12" and a couple of full clips to it. And never once was it an obstacle to passing through the frame. Moreover, no one has ever checked the documents and was not even interested, although in summer clothes the holster with this rather big toy is clearly visible.
          1. Mikado
            Mikado 25 July 2013 11: 18 New
            +2
            I just want to warn you, and not only you, but all the fans to drag a gun with them, that with the adoption of the law on the legalization of weapons, on the idea, such a freebie will come to an end. In shops, restaurants, bars, cinemas, train stations, theaters, even at work and other public places, they will most likely be barred from entering weapons, moreover, this will not just hang a sign for pro forma and the detector should not be spit on, but real checks. So with such a law with your favorite toy you can only go to the dacha and go to the shooting range.
          2. Uncle
            Uncle 25 July 2013 12: 47 New
            +2
            Quote: vadimN
            And therefore, every weekend I have on my belt the legitimate "GrandPower T-12" and a couple of full clips for it.

            Well, in the summer, when you are wearing shorts or light pants, where do you wear it? Is it really open? In my opinion, you are a temptation for those who want to get your weapon. In addition, the dignity of the gun in its hidden wearing. That is, you with a holster on your belt look almost like a policeman in uniform. smile
          3. lelyk72
            lelyk72 25 July 2013 14: 33 New
            +1
            Well, I hope that you are friends with your head, in the next 200 years you will not quarrel with her, and we will not find out anything bad about you in the news, again, in the next 200 years .....
            ....... Only as adequate as you .... I don’t know how many, but here is the fact that most of them are not sure .......
            And in conditions of mass permission to carry their weapons (adequate) there should be not MOST but ALL!
        3. builder74
          builder74 25 July 2013 20: 55 New
          0
          I read. You can not write your comment. The man has already said everything. +100! To the proponents of trunks I propose to get acquainted.
      3. Dilshat
        Dilshat 24 July 2013 23: 29 New
        +5
        Why do slaves need weapons? Suddenly they will get tired of the slave position and they will go to shoot power.
        1. Yarbay
          Yarbay 24 July 2013 23: 33 New
          +1
          Quote: Dilshat
          Why do slaves need weapons?

          Well yes)))))
          Otmazy)))
          The owner decided to feel himself?))))))))
          and what prevents you from feeling without weapons ??)))
          Only your slavish psychology about the fact that you are the only person with weapons !!
        2. Troitsky
          Troitsky 25 July 2013 02: 40 New
          0
          and what does the smoothbore do not suit you7
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 25 July 2013 09: 48 New
            +4
            Quote: Trinity
            what smoothbore doesn't suit you
            Than? Yes, the fact that the ammunition from it is as anonymous as the traumatic. Once you shoot from it, and then all those who died as a result of weekly shootings within 500 km are hanged on you. And what the hell can you prove request
            1. tilovaykrisa
              tilovaykrisa 25 July 2013 10: 56 New
              +1
              The methodology for determining from which smooth barrel a shot was fired has existed since the end of the 80s, this is taught in the 2nd year of the Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
        3. Masterzserg
          Masterzserg 25 July 2013 12: 48 New
          +1
          Better a living "slave" than a dead master with a pistol in his pocket))))
      4. Su24
        Su24 25 July 2013 01: 16 New
        -8
        I would advise the advocates of the idea of ​​"immaturity" of people to arms to stop considering their people as unreasonable idiots.


        Cheap populism.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 25 July 2013 01: 23 New
          +8
          Quote: Su24
          Cheap populism.

          Well, what kind of populism is it, in plain text it says - Russians are underdeveloped (I softened the expression), which can’t be trusted with weapons. And it turns out some kind of crap, in the army you can trust weapons, but on a civilian you can no longer. It turns out that the Americans can, the Swiss can, any zas_rans can, and the Russians can’t.
          1. Masterzserg
            Masterzserg 25 July 2013 12: 54 New
            -1
            Quote: Setrac
            And it turns out some kind of crap, in the army you can trust weapons, but on a civilian you can no longer.
            - Well 6lya and an argument. laughing
            Quote: Setrac
            It turns out that the Americans can, the Swiss can, any zas_rans can, and the Russians can’t.
            - that’s exactly what Russophobia is not in; you set beer aside and think before yelling about what was imposed on you.
    2. Larus
      Larus 24 July 2013 18: 28 New
      24
      In the article, in Russian letters it is written that they are not for the abolition of licensing, but for free sale. And the psychos and drug addicts will not be given the necessary information. And it’s enough just to make psychos and patients out of us at once !!!
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Jin
          Jin 24 July 2013 20: 03 New
          +4
          Quote: Jin
          And to psychos and drug addicts the necessary information will not be given



          Damn, wrote, wrote, it was not written ... okay ... Not in our country only. Everything can be done for grandmas, and so far the situation has not changed at all. In short, I want the trunk, but I don’t want all sorts of wooden waistbands to also have military weapons. Nah necessary, judge for yourself. They scoff at injuries, almost because they looked at each other askance ... When these people start shooting in the crowd, and you and your beloved and dear people, children, God forbid, next ... this is scary ... Russia is not ready for such things as short-barrels for citizens. Himself a fierce supporter of weapons, but no, you have to look objectively, not ready yet!
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 24 July 2013 20: 18 New
            +3
            Quote: Jin
            When these shoot in the crowd will start

            Yes, they will not. Injury right now is something like a raspberry-colored jacket, a STATUS thing. Like shooting from it.
            1. Jin
              Jin 24 July 2013 20: 24 New
              +9
              Quote: Misantrop
              Yes, they will not.


              Oh, my colleague, they’ll become with them ... And hell would be with them, they’ll kill themselves, they will rekindle them, it’s a pity for the people around, even a pity for the dog than these waist-length wooden earhooks. I would have drenched such myself, but somehow it’s always not a pity for them, but for their mothers ...
          2. dmitreach
            dmitreach 24 July 2013 22: 44 New
            +4
            Look out for injuries, almost because they looked at each other askance ...

            Now, if a traumatic bullet would leave information for criminologists, then even a revolver would not be a panacea for those who want to "joke". When it comes to opponents of legalization this truth, as simple as "boots", will come.
            1. rereture
              rereture 24 July 2013 22: 47 New
              +1
              And if the trunk is stolen and naughty is not caught?)) What will the examination give? That the trunk is stolen.
              1. dmitreach
                dmitreach 24 July 2013 22: 53 New
                0
                And if yes?
                Are we here "discussing sverokonin in a vacuum" or specifics? If the first, then do not bother writing, Dear.
                1. rereture
                  rereture 24 July 2013 23: 03 New
                  -2
                  Actually a spherical horse in a vacuum. Specifics: An attacker (Z) stole a short-barreled weapon from a citizen (G), G turned to the police, the trunk in the base was marked as stolen. Z raided a private house, the landlord resisted and was shot dead. Z successfully hid, no witnesses. We carried out a ballistic examination, it is known that the murder was committed by G.'s short-barreled weapon. What next?
                  1. dmitreach
                    dmitreach 24 July 2013 23: 13 New
                    +1
                    And what? So for reference: the explosive in the ammunition of the Second World War, although expired, was saturated with moisture and caked (detonates not adequately to the calculations of the weapon designers. It should burn evenly, but actually explodes due to different density), but it can be enough for one shot. There is no accounting for weapons inherited from that time in Russia. And what ?!
                    Threat. The owner of the house turned out to be an IPSC / IPDA shooter, and received a bunch of nice lulz from the moron who entered his home. We fantasize further than aliens? I am not interested. Sorry.
                    1. rereture
                      rereture 24 July 2013 23: 15 New
                      +1
                      But not everyone is an IPSC / IPDA shooter, and where does the ammunition from WWII?
                      1. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 24 July 2013 23: 32 New
                        +4
                        not everyone is an IPSC / IPDA shooter

                        A must EVERYONE who wants to have a CCW. Well, for the "endless Russianness", let's call it the Voroshilov shooter, or one who systematically trains within the framework of the TRP standards, once in a certain period, or DOSAAF ... although in this case: from changing places of the words ...
                        About WWII, this is in the style of fantasy about:
                        An attacker (Z) stole a short-barreled weapon from a citizen (D)
                        and blah blah blah. You can still remember Dagestan and Chechnya. Or Abkhazia and the sale of lemons in the fruit market.
                        How else to clearly explain that this crap, with illegal weapons, is not interesting to me? As well as fantasies on the topic.
                      2. rereture
                        rereture 24 July 2013 23: 37 New
                        +1
                        Friend how often trains if not a secret?
                      3. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 24 July 2013 23: 47 New
                        +3

                        As loot allows. I would like to more often. The patron is dear now. And this is due to the lack of a sane "sales market". Therefore, for legalization. For there will be a market - there will be clubs - there will be adequate prices. By the way, in the near future I am planning to go (for a fee).
                      4. rereture
                        rereture 24 July 2013 23: 57 New
                        0
                        I agree, the prices go up, not only for cartridges but also for track rental.
                      5. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 25 July 2013 00: 12 New
                        +1
                        Well, there is a complex of everyone. We have mainly for ammunition and barrel rent. Your own trunk, if it cost within 500 bucks, would be more profitable ... But. Russia. 75 and he's "your type." (Listed as "sponsor") Not a cheap sport.
                        And I don’t even think of renting a gallery, it’s easier in a group of 4, with an instructor. For training - the norm.
                2. Yarbay
                  Yarbay 24 July 2013 23: 57 New
                  -2
                  Quote: dmitreach
                  And EVERYONE who wants to have CCW should

                  What is your occupation??
                3. dmitreach
                  dmitreach 25 July 2013 00: 13 New
                  0
                  and what does it matter?
        2. Misantrop
          Misantrop 24 July 2013 23: 46 New
          +4
          Quote: rereture
          Z successfully hid, no witnesses. We carried out a ballistic examination, it is known that the murder was committed by G.'s short-barreled weapon. What next?

          Farther? Then the data of this trunk is taken and under what circumstances it was lost. And those who are not involved in both facts are cut off. Which sharply narrows the circle of suspects. Let me remind you, not just "short-barreled", but "stamps ..., no ..., lost as a result ..."
        3. va3610
          va3610 29 July 2013 13: 29 New
          0
          That's exactly what next?
    3. Misantrop
      Misantrop 24 July 2013 22: 54 New
      +3
      Quote: rereture
      And if the trunk is stolen and naughty is not caught?)) What will the examination give? That the trunk is stolen.
      What kind of expertise until "caught"? Who will conduct it? And if caught, then, at least, add to the "piggy bank of exploits" a case of theft or robbery (in which it was lost). And this will add at least a couple of years to the deadline (or seriously complicate the work of a lawyer)
      1. rereture
        rereture 24 July 2013 23: 05 New
        0
        Not the fact that an attacker does not get rid of the trunk.
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 24 July 2013 23: 49 New
          +3
          Quote: rereture
          Not the fact that an attacker does not get rid of the trunk.

          Damn, I repeat once again that he just DOESN’T TAKE IT. Since he has NO confidence in the success of his robbery in advance, and hang on yourself initially, all past jambs of this trunk are never interesting to him
    4. va3610
      va3610 29 July 2013 13: 27 New
      0
      And now that there are few stolen trunks in the country, and which of them killed everyone?
  • Pimply
    Pimply 24 July 2013 21: 30 New
    +9
    Psychos and drug addicts that you want and so get. It's not a problem. The issue is protection against such miners.
    1. Masterzserg
      Masterzserg 25 July 2013 13: 15 New
      +1
      Quote: Pimply
      Psychos and drug addicts that you want and so get.
      - Well, yes, let’s also make it easier for them.
      Quote: Pimply
      The issue is protection against such miners.
      This is now a question of protection from the extruders, and after legalization, the extruders will become more plus seemingly latent normal psychos))) will manifest themselves and become extractive, is your pistol gun worth increasing the number of psychos with weapons at times?
    2. evgen762
      evgen762 25 July 2013 21: 06 New
      0
      The question is: give or not give weapons. And the arguments in one direction and the other, you can come up with a lope you want.
  • AVV
    AVV 24 July 2013 22: 01 New
    +1
    It’s just that not everything needs to be adopted thoughtlessly from the West, you have to think with your own head! A good proverb, measure it ten times, cut it once !!!
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 24 July 2013 22: 14 New
      0
      And tell us, what do you think "your head" looks like?
    2. vjatsergey
      vjatsergey 25 July 2013 02: 58 New
      +3
      Only while you measure 10 times others will already be cut off.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 25 July 2013 09: 57 New
        0
        Quote: vjatsergey
        while you measure others 10 times already fromcut.
        If only they didn’t kill the measuring lol
  • Masterzserg
    Masterzserg 25 July 2013 13: 01 New
    +2
    Quote: Larus
    And to psychos and drug addicts the necessary information will not be given.
    Which country do you live in? Or too small and no experience?
    Quote: Larus
    And just enough that immediately of us loonies and patients do !!!
    - but with such judgments as yours, it’s very tempting to do just that.
  • Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 24 July 2013 19: 54 New
    12
    Quote: xetai9977
    Are you sure that the crime rate will not increase at times? Have drug addicts, drunks, or just psychos disappeared? What, innocent people do not die in the USA, although possession of weapons is allowed there.?


    Xetai9977! So after all, there is no question that the same short-barrel should be released like pancakes in a store :) Licensing requirements for the owners of even traumatic weapons in the country are now very serious - at least getting a license is far from easy. But the MOST main problem is not even the ability to acquire legally, but the ability to use weapons for self-defense and not be in the sphere of criminal proceedings. Now if Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich uses a traumatic / short-barreled / gun / knife against a gang of 1 or more gopniks (even if the latter had something similar in their hands), then with a probability of 80-90% he will sit down for exceeding the limits of self-defense expressed in the infliction of light / heavy harm to health of one or more "degrading elements of society". In practice, you do not even have the right to tell a police officer that you carry / acquire a weapon for self-defense purposes - immediately after this phrase you can "dry crackers" - these words will surely come up in court and the court will consider them through the prism of the prosecution.

    In our region 5 years ago there was a striking example.
    A pensioner-watchman of a dacha cooperative with a gun came across 3 young men (up to 20 years old) who robbed cottages. One of them went to the watchman with threats, the last got scared, slipped and pulled the trigger. The result - a failed criminal died in a hospital. Despite the support of the population, the pensioner was not given parole, but imprisonment. I do not remember the timing and mode.

    PS: for the most part, the majority of legally possessing hunting weapons or traumatics are law-abiding people. There are exceptions - the same "would-be lawyer-pharmacist", but the big question is in his sanity. But the mass of weapons that are at the disposal of various criminal groups, and which are used against a law-abiding population that is not able to fight back, is also a fact.
    1. evgen762
      evgen762 24 July 2013 20: 11 New
      +6
      Need LAW. Climbed into my house - I can shoot. And it is necessary to revise the article on the excess of self-defense. It turns out ridiculously beaten to death by a drekole, but you cannot wave a knife. In the end, the barrel will be expensive, you can hang a lot on it: a GPS beacon, a camera, bullets, numbering, etc., well, of course, check everything. But, it seems to me, they are slowing down at the grassroots level - new records, reports, references.
      1. tilovaykrisa
        tilovaykrisa 24 July 2013 20: 16 New
        +2
        and chain to the owner.
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 24 July 2013 20: 21 New
        +4
        Quote: evgen762
        Need LAW
        Well, there won’t be any law until the question of legalization of the short-barrels arises. For The current situation of power is SET. They DO NOT WANT and WILL NOT CHANGE ANYTHINGuntil locked.
        1. domokl
          domokl 24 July 2013 20: 56 New
          +2
          Quote: Misantrop
          Well, there won’t be any law until the question of legalization of the short-barrels arises. For the current situation of the power is DISSOLVING.

          But what about hunting rifles, traumatics? They are also being used now. Only then after the dismantling with the prosecutor are lengthy and do not always end well.
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 25 July 2013 09: 59 New
            0
            Quote: domokl
            hunting rifles, traumatics? They are also being used right now. Only then after the dismantling with the prosecutor are long and do not always end well
            I repeat, a shot from the above ANONYMOUS (unlike rifled). So disassembly is inevitable request
      3. Setrac
        Setrac 24 July 2013 20: 22 New
        +2
        Quote: evgen762
        Need LAW. Climbed into my house - I can shoot.

        I’ll invite you to my house and shoot you and they will justify me?
        1. Jin
          Jin 24 July 2013 20: 28 New
          +4
          Quote: Setrac
          I’ll invite you to my house and shoot you and they will justify me?


          This is the essence of the problem. We need a working law, and for this we need working cops ... and this is, you know, science fiction. In the coming years, this is not a real topic at all, my IMHA
          1. domokl
            domokl 24 July 2013 21: 02 New
            +2
            Quote: Jin
            This is the essence of the problem. We need a working law, and for this we need working cops ... and this is, you know, science fiction. In the coming years, this is not a real topic at all, my IMHA

            If the question is posed in this way, then generally speaking about self-defense is not necessary.
            I have always been and remain an adversary of weapons as such in inept hands. But what this lady offers is noteworthy. Licensing, compulsory registration of weapons, checking their storage (as if they were hunting), prohibition of carrying them outside the house, car or villa. e. we are offered the option of Switzerland ... At least keep the machine gun at home and use it when attacking you (but legally). but I took it out of the house = I sat down to think about the legislation in jail.
        2. Misantrop
          Misantrop 24 July 2013 20: 44 New
          +2
          Quote: Setrac
          I’ll invite you to my house and shoot you and they will justify me?
          It depends on how much you pay. And now it is ALREADY acting. Recall the son of the main Crimean Tatar. He shot and ... does not answer, a sick man, the case successfully descends on the brakes ...
          1. tilovaykrisa
            tilovaykrisa 24 July 2013 20: 47 New
            -1
            So it is with you.
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 24 July 2013 21: 00 New
              +2
              Quote: tilovaykrisa
              So then you have
              Yeah, my own characteristics. All are equal, but some ... more evenly. Injury cannot be bought, but for 3,5 thousand cu offered ... AKM (7,62) with a package of documents. As a legal hunting ... Interestingly, injury, if issued for a bribe, will cost about the same amount. Rates, are they like that? .. what
              1. montemor
                montemor 24 July 2013 22: 44 New
                +1
                depends on the region, probably. Last summer, the cops offered a permit for injury per unit. Another half for a barrel is cheaper, however laughing
            2. Yarbay
              Yarbay 24 July 2013 22: 25 New
              +2
              Quote: tilovaykrisa
              So it is with you.

              you will be much worse !!

              MOSCOW, April 23. Former State Duma deputy Gennady Gudkov is surprised at how easy the Belgorod shooter received permission to carry weapons.


              "A four-time convicted (was on the run), alcohol-abusing repeat offender buys a carbine in" Okhota "with the permission of the Ministry of Internal Affairs," he stated on Twitter.

              "A normal person hardly gets a permit for a weapon. A repeat offender is easy. The system is corrupt, all the filters in the Interior Ministry are for bribes," the politician concludes.

              Let us remind you that on April 22, in Belgorod, Sergei Pomazun, driving a BMW X5, fired at the Okhota store in the city center. He killed three shop assistants and then went outside and opened fire on passers-by, shooting 14-year-old and 16-year-old girls, as well as a passer-by crossing the street. The offender managed to escape. 1 police officers are looking for him. Read more about this here.

              In Belgorod, a two-day mourning for the victims of the shooting began.
              More details: http://www.rosbalt.ru/moscow/2013/04/23/1121253.html

              In Primorsky district, an armed recidivist attacked a police car.

              As it became known to AN "Operational Cover", the incident occurred on February 15 at about 10 in the morning at the house 22/1 on Lansky highway. When patrolling a police official car, a 31-year-old Petersburger living in the specified house suddenly started throwing himself. As it turned out later, the young man had previously been convicted of murder if he exceeded the limits of self-defense and theft, he was also held responsible for the careless storage of weapons and the sale of obviously stolen property.

              The man beat on the windows of a car, expressed obscene language at police officers, threatened law enforcement officers with harassment and “trouble in the service,” as well as physical violence. At the request of the police to go to the department, the bully got a pistol from his belt and directed it towards the driver, a senior police sergeant.

              Buyan was twisted and taken to the 34th police department, where a four-barrel OSA pistol, as well as 6 rounds, were seized from him. A weapons permit was issued to a previously convicted man in December 2012.
              http://konkretno.ru/armi_siloviki/54037-v-primorskom-rajone-vooruzhennyj-recidiv

              ist-atakoval-policejskuyu-mashinu.html
              1. Yarbay
                Yarbay 24 July 2013 22: 35 New
                +1
                The police of the Don Tula region has appointed an internal audit of violations of the law in the field of arms trafficking, the press service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in the Tula region reports.
                In the course of the audit of the activity of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in the city of Donskoy, violations of the requirements of the Federal Law of 13.12.1996 No. 150-FZ “On Weapons” were revealed.
                December 25, 2012 in the department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Don, citizen K. was given permission to store and carry hunting weapons. However, in December 2011, a man was convicted of a deliberate crime of moderate gravity. K. was fined 250 thousand rubles.
                As it became known to IA Tula Press, K.'s criminal record should be canceled this year on May 30. Thus, a permit for the storage and carrying of hunting weapons was issued to a citizen until the conviction was canceled in the manner prescribed by law.
                On this fact, an official check has been assigned to the Donskoy police department, as a result of which police officers guilty of violating the requirements of the Federal Law will be brought to disciplinary action.
                http://www.tulapressa.ru/2013/03/v-tulskoj-oblasti-razreshenie-na-oruzhie-vydali
                -grazhdaninu-s-nepogashennoj-sudimostyu /
                1. vadimN
                  vadimN 25 July 2013 11: 24 New
                  -1
                  These arguments are not against weapons, but against corrupt or disorderly cops. They must be fought, not the citizen’s right to self-defense with weapons!
              2. Misantrop
                Misantrop 25 July 2013 10: 02 New
                0
                Quote: Yarbay
                A weapons permit was issued to a previously convicted man in December 2012.
                Why is the author of the signature still not sitting on this permission?
                1. Mikado
                  Mikado 25 July 2013 11: 22 New
                  +1
                  And why is the chairman of the VVK, which Evsyukov went through, not sitting at the same time as the psychiatrist of this VVK? They put a signature there that he is mentally healthy.
                  1. va3610
                    va3610 29 July 2013 13: 37 New
                    0
                    Yevsyukov, if you remember the major of the VVK, the officers pass before the assignment of the first officer rank i.e. well, lieutenant or junior lieutenant, then he went through it 10 years before the trouble, moreover, judicial experts recognized him as normal and what does the chairman of the VVK and a psychiatrist have to do with it.
                2. Rakti-kali
                  Rakti-kali 25 July 2013 12: 00 New
                  0
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  Why is the author of the signature still not sitting on this permission?

                  Because this means the individual responsibility of a representative of the authorities, but those who are accustomed to collective irresponsibility can not understand it.
          2. AlNikolaich
            AlNikolaich 24 July 2013 22: 39 New
            +2
            Quote: Misantrop
            It depends on how much you pay. And now it is ALREADY acting. Recall the son of the main Crimean Tatar. He shot and ... does not answer, a sick man, the case successfully descends on the brakes ...

            Damn, guys, but the situation is mixed! Like crazy no way responsible! It’s abnormal when a normal citizen is prosecuted for a crime, and the psycho avoids punishment ... After all, the law is the same for everyone! Or how? The offender was insane ... -So this is his problem!
            Chikatilo was also insane, but they shot him ...
            It seems to me that a clause in the laws on committing a crime in an insane state must be canceled, because they introduced it so that everyone would freeze with money and would have slandered from punishment. Is it really bad? soaked a couple of people (for life), recognized as insane, spent a year in a psychiatric hospital, and was released as healed. Beauty...
            1. vadimN
              vadimN 25 July 2013 11: 25 New
              +1
              If an irresponsible person did this, then it is dangerous for society and must be isolated in a psychiatric hospital LIFETIME.
        3. Alexei
          Alexei 24 July 2013 20: 49 New
          -1
          Quote: Setrac
          I’ll invite you to my house and shoot you and they will justify me?

          Well, not really ... His wife should go to the patch of land for complete conviction and say that he is. And what? A lot of rubbish occurs at home in the blue. And law-abiding citizens sometimes do such things that the gopniks have a rest. Yes, the bandits are breaking right into everyone’s house. I believe that if you are a coward, then no trunk will help you in anything. If weapons are allowed, then to hell with two that will change for the crimes. Is there even one policeman here? If so, tell me, what the hell are you for?
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 24 July 2013 20: 55 New
            +3
            Quote: Alexej
            It is necessary to call his wife into the patch of land for complete conviction and say that he is. And what? A lot of rubbish occurs at home in the blue. And law-abiding citizens sometimes do such things that the gopniks have a rest. Yes, the bandits are breaking right into everyone’s house. I believe that if you are a coward, then no trunk will help you in anything. If weapons are allowed, then to hell with two that will change for the crimes.
            What is this "stream of consciousness"? belay Law-abiding ... sometimes ... If you are a coward ... Are you a coward? If not, why didn’t they jump from the roof of the high-rise building? Why don’t you go to the red light, from cowardice?
            1. Alexei
              Alexei 24 July 2013 22: 08 New
              0
              Quote: Misantrop
              Are you a coward If not, why didn’t they jump from the roof of the high-rise building? Why don’t you go to the red light, from cowardice?

              This is the "stream of consciousness".
              You perfectly understood what exactly I wanted to convey. And what is this irony, why? You are essentially please. Well, like: "You are wrong, this is a weapon in order to feel more confident. Robbers and hooligans will not bother, because I have a gun. The rapists will bypass the girls. Yes, if you give civilians weapons, then the police are not needed cut it down, it still doesn't work .... "Blah blah blah ... Well, at least something like that, I would understand you.
              Quote: Misantrop
              Law-abiding ... sometimes ..

              I will recover - quite often.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 24 July 2013 22: 24 New
                +2
                Quote: Alexej
                This is the "stream of consciousness".

                Well, you yourself started the "coward-netrus". If I'm not a coward, this does not mean that I want to get hit in the face or kidneys. And even if a person is a coward, can he be beaten, robbed, humiliated? Well, if a person is a daredevil, which are few, this does not mean that he will be able to confront three or four opponents on the street. And although I am not a supporter of short-barrels on hand (but not an opponent either), your arguments are not convincing.
              2. Misantrop
                Misantrop 24 July 2013 22: 36 New
                +4
                Quote: Alexej
                I will recover - quite often.
                In vain they got better. Very rarely. A school friend works as a medical examiner. So all these "quite often" go directly through it, for more than a quarter of a century. He would definitely know if it were "quite often". And my mother has more than 30 years of experience as an ambulance doctor. Likewise.
                Quote: Alexej
                "You are wrong, this is a weapon in order to feel more confident. Robbers and hooligans will not bother, because I have a gun. The girls will be bypassed by rapists. Yes, if you give civilians weapons, then the police don't need to cut them, it doesn't work anyway .... "

                Well, why is this (a real continuation of his last post)?
                If in essence, it is EXTREMELY hard to educate a self-confident person, if there are many more prohibitions around him than rights and obligations. Confidence gives no trunk, no brass knuckles and a crowd of hangers-on. And not even a tank, crawling on the asphalt from behind. Self-confidence in a citizen is given the RIGHT and the DUTY to protect themselves and other citizens from arbitrariness. Authorities, bandits, wild animals, etc. And the trunk here, by and large, is not too important. Yes, it’s more convenient and easier with him.
                BUT, power will not give this RIGHT to its citizens NEVER until the problem of legalizing the short-barrels arises before it in full growth. Not on its own, but just like the SYMBOL OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-PROTECTION. All other methods of influence in this regard on power have already been tried, DOES NOT WORK
          2. Setrac
            Setrac 24 July 2013 21: 04 New
            +2
            Quote: Alexej
            I believe that if you are a coward, then no trunk will help you in anything.

            Still how to help.
            Quote: Alexej
            Yes, the gangsters are breaking right towards everyone home.

            For those to whom they "break into the house", you can simply obtain permission to store hunting weapons at home.
            I don’t have a firearm and don’t need it, but I like the idea of ​​having a gun in case (for example) ... a zombie epidemic lol
            1. Alexei
              Alexei 24 July 2013 22: 28 New
              +2
              Now I asked the girl if she needed a weapon, and she said yes. And I asked why, she answered "how why, to kill people." Here is a clear answer.
              1. Yarbay
                Yarbay 24 July 2013 22: 48 New
                +2
                Quote: Alexej
                And I asked why, she answered "how why, to kill people." Here is a clear answer.

                That's right too !! +++++
                Adult uncles shoot hunting))))
                *Protect myself)))))))))
          3. Yarbay
            Yarbay 24 July 2013 22: 37 New
            -1
            Quote: Alexej
            I believe that if you are a coward, then no trunk will help you in anything.

            That's right !!
            The desire to carry weapons usually comes from complex people, from nerds who are constantly offended and they think that nobody will touch them with weapons already, and they will be able to touch others)) !! It’s rare among fans of weapons, but it’s also a lot of complexes!
            He who does not know how to protect himself without a weapon cannot protect himself with a tank))
            1. dmitreach
              dmitreach 24 July 2013 22: 57 New
              +1
              Have you ever walked down the street of an unfamiliar village? Or in the evening to cut through the "industrial zone" (I'm talking about dogs) Life is much more varied than "notorious nerds". Or walking with a child, near fellow workers ignoring muzzles, out of "love for art" ... A half-centner carcass reacts poorly to trauma. (Just do not mention "oso-like" in the sue ... because XXX is unlimited. I sincerely do not understand why increase the weight of a rubber bullet and the dimensions of a cartridge, bringing it to a fatal degree? Better .38 (.40 or .45), but with a lead bullet and rifled barrel! And shit !: with the ability to control "where it will fly")
              1. Yarbay
                Yarbay 24 July 2013 23: 55 New
                -1
                Quote: dmitreach
                Have you ever walked down the street of an unfamiliar village? Or in the evening to cut through the "industrial zone" (I'm talking about dogs) Life is much more varied than "notorious nerds". Or to walk with a child, near co-workers who ignore muzzles, out of "love for art" ..

                Hundreds of times I had in my youth and nothing happened to me !! For this, special devices are enough that scare away dogs, such in bulk in stores !!!
                Why kill animals ??
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 24 July 2013 23: 58 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Yarbay
                  For this, special devices are enough that scare away dogs, such in bulk in stores !!!
                  And which are strictly prohibited for sale in Ukraine. But, nevertheless, sold in the markets. Here is such a country of optional laws ... request
                  1. Yarbay
                    Yarbay 25 July 2013 00: 14 New
                    0
                    Quote: Misantrop
                    And which are strictly prohibited for sale in Ukraine.

                    What do you mean???
                    As far as I know, what I'm talking about is not forbidden !!
                    This device makes certain noises and not one dog comes close !!
                    And recommended even by Greenpeace))))))
                    1. dmitreach
                      dmitreach 25 July 2013 00: 40 New
                      0
                      Do you warrant yours? And then the dog can bite. In soft.
                    2. Yarbay
                      Yarbay 25 July 2013 00: 42 New
                      0
                      Quote: dmitreach
                      And then the dog can bite. In soft.

                      Do not bite)))
                      And it doesn’t come close !!)))
                      checked more than once))))))))
              2. rereture
                rereture 25 July 2013 00: 00 New
                +1
                Good winter leather boots saved several times wink
                1. dmitreach
                  dmitreach 25 July 2013 00: 41 New
                  +1
                  option. and the stone helped me. but then ... "not our method" :)
              3. dmitreach
                dmitreach 25 July 2013 00: 29 New
                +1
                Well, okay, once alive. Only the world has not converged on you. There are other cases.
                I am not a laboratory for testing the "special devices" that you have ever used. "Life is dear to me like a memory." Do you like it when a feral dog, in a pack, "on its own territory", comes from the back? I don’t. Just not a masochist.
                Better gopot. They are somehow clearer. Though habits are similar.
                1. Yarbay
                  Yarbay 25 July 2013 00: 34 New
                  0
                  Quote: dmitreach
                  I am not a laboratory for testing the "special devices" that you have ever used.

                  Yes, they are full !!
                  Almost all international companies require that they do not kill animals and even give out these devices at stations for their employees and security for free !!
                  They passed the test long ago !!
                  Quote: dmitreach
                  Do you like it when a feral dog, in a flock, "on its territory", comes from the back?

                  Yes, no dog even comes close !!
                  1. dmitreach
                    dmitreach 25 July 2013 00: 42 New
                    0
                    So scary? Nikolai Sergeyevich, is that you? Comrade Valuev, not all residents of Russia, your twin brothers.
                  2. Yarbay
                    Yarbay 25 July 2013 00: 51 New
                    +1
                    Quote: dmitreach
                    So scary? Nikolai Sergeyevich, is that you?

                    Please read carefully what I'm writing about ??
                    What does it have to do with it, scary or not ???
                    I’m writing about the device!
                    I assure you with him, even if you look like a dystrophic, no dog will suit you !!
                  3. dmitreach
                    dmitreach 25 July 2013 01: 14 New
                    +1
                    I am a dinosaur. I prefer brute force. modern gadgets are a whim of fashion.
                  4. Setrac
                    Setrac 25 July 2013 01: 30 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Yarbay
                    I’m writing about the device!
                    I assure you with him, even if you look like a dystrophic, no dog will suit you !!

                    First of all, you do not like animals!
                    Secondly - bench press point? I walk past the dogs calmly, yes, I have to watch, not give the dog a chance, but an adult always has to deal with the dog (unless of course she has been trained to kill).
                    I had to stab the dog in the nose once (German Shepherd), at first the owner apologized, then the dog was reassured by the two, but after swearing that the dog accidentally curled its nose and wagged its tail wink
                  5. Setrac
                    Setrac 25 July 2013 02: 04 New
                    +1
                    Dear Yarbay
                    It's strange to hear, after all this talk about "cowards" and "real men" who fight back criminals with their bare hands. And suddenly it turns out that you are driving away the poor dogs with some kind of device, how is it not like a man? If you are a man, then this device should be called a dagger, right?
        4. aleks77
          aleks77 25 July 2013 10: 25 New
          0
          You can’t touch the dog, let the child eat it.
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 24 July 2013 23: 01 New
      +2
      Quote: Yarbay
      The desire to carry weapons usually occurs with complex people, with nerds who are constantly offended and they think that nobody will touch them with weapons, and they will be able to touch others
      I have met this thought for the 10th time. Do you have a problem with this, why do you impose this on everyone? About the "offended nerd"? what
      1. Yarbay
        Yarbay 24 July 2013 23: 05 New
        +1
        Quote: Misantrop
        Do you have a problem with this, why do you impose this on everyone? About the "offended nerd"?

        Of course, problems)))
        A normal man in a normal state does not need a weapon !!!
        And in abnormal and permission is not needed !!
        It will then be unsafe to live !!
        So many idiots and offenders will walk with weapons !!
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 24 July 2013 23: 29 New
          +6
          Quote: Yarbay
          A normal man in a normal state does not need a weapon !!!

          A normal man in a normal state, liable for military service, not previously convicted, MUST have a weapon at home, use it to protect others, to help the police and to protect the state.
          But the short-barrels discussed in this article have nothing to do with it.
          1. Yarbay
            Yarbay 24 July 2013 23: 37 New
            +1
            Quote: Setrac
            A normal man in a normal state, liable for military service, not previously convicted, MUST have a weapon at home, use it to protect others, to help the police and to protect the state.

            You are not right!
            For this, in a normal state there are normal law enforcement agencies !!
            He is not obliged to keep weapons at home !!!
            1. Anti
              Anti 24 July 2013 23: 45 New
              +2
              Give each large family on PCA !!! soldier
            2. Misantrop
              Misantrop 24 July 2013 23: 50 New
              +2
              Quote: Yarbay
              For this, in a normal state there are normal law enforcement agencies !!

              What is one such state in the history of civilization?
            3. Yarbay
              Yarbay 25 July 2013 00: 00 New
              -2
              Quote: Misantrop
              What is one such state in the history of civilization?

              Yes, I’ll name dozens !!
              At least my country !!
              Currently, there are no gangs with criminals, gopniks to fight fiercely if the thief feeds him an article for a long time !!
              Go to any area at any time of the day or night!
              On call instantly come!
              There are drawbacks, but this can also be fixed, but the main thing with weapons is rare crimes !!
            4. dmitreach
              dmitreach 25 July 2013 00: 34 New
              +2
              ABOUT! ... Yes, you live in the Pink World! Or voted wallet? Elite housing area, security near the barrier?
            5. Yarbay
              Yarbay 25 July 2013 00: 45 New
              -1
              Quote: dmitreach
              ABOUT! ... Yes, you live in the Pink World! Or voted wallet?

              Yes, no in the usual!
              My wallet doesn’t touch anyone, there is enough for family and food and Thank God!
              Quote: dmitreach
              Elite housing area, security near the barrier?

              Normal work area!
              I invite you at any time convenient for you to come, be a dear guest and see for yourself !!
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 25 July 2013 00: 03 New
        +2
        Quote: Yarbay
        For this, in a normal state there are normal law enforcement agencies !!

        Of course, in order to protect the country there is an army, men here do not want to protect their family and their country, women do not want to give birth, the state accordingly does not trust such irresponsible citizens, that is how nations fall into decay.
      3. Yarbay
        Yarbay 25 July 2013 00: 16 New
        0
        Quote: Setrac
        the state accordingly does not trust such irresponsible citizens, this is how nations fall into decay

        It is becoming ever easier for citizens to demand from the State the quality performance of their functions, and not to cry !!
      4. Misantrop
        Misantrop 25 July 2013 00: 22 New
        +3
        Quote: Yarbay
        Citizens must demand from the State the high-quality performance of their functions, and not cry !!
        All clear. Radio program "Evening Fairy Tale". And then I already had and really thought that at least one country managed to solve all these problems. Now it remains only to upload a photo of Ilham Aliyev with a notebook and a pen on the street. As citizens demand from him, and he writes
      5. dmitreach
        dmitreach 25 July 2013 00: 37 New
        +2
        Better Lukin Vladimir Petrovich. He will protect us! He is experienced. laughing
        It’s easier for citizens to demand from

        Well, if the requirements are not heard, then be patient and demand again. laughing
      6. Yarbay
        Yarbay 25 July 2013 00: 37 New
        -2
        Quote: Misantrop
        And then I already really thought that in at least one country they were able to solve all these problems.

        Please come see for yourself !!
        Quote: Misantrop
        As his citizens demand, and he writes

        You are all trying to exaggerate)))
        I spoke in those cases when the State does not want to do this !!
        In our case, even the father of Ilham Aliyev took on crime and criminals, he was a wise man and understood the danger to society !!!
        In our case, we did not have to make a request and requirements !!
        In our case, the state even began to fight this evil without it!
        In your case, the trouble is that your law enforcement agencies do not want to do this and you took it as a flag in your hands and want to feel like a man with a gun, because without a gun you do not feel like a man that's all))))
      7. dmitreach
        dmitreach 25 July 2013 00: 47 New
        +3
        In our case, the state even began to fight this evil without it!

        But while it (the state) is "in the process of building a bright future, without a criminal element", I live more calmly, counting on myself. What if something happens, to be healthy, and not to demand free medicine, the state that did not manage to build a "bright future". I live in the present, not in the "bright future".
  • Setrac
    Setrac 25 July 2013 00: 32 New
    0
    Quote: Yarbay
    It is becoming ever easier for citizens to demand from the State the quality performance of their functions, and not to cry !!

    In addition to rights, citizens have obligations, citizens do not want to cooperate with the police, serve and give birth to children, the state does not want to protect, treat and teach citizens, everything is fair.
  • Yarbay
    Yarbay 25 July 2013 00: 47 New
    -1
    Quote: Setrac
    In addition to rights, citizens have obligations, citizens do not want to cooperate with the police, serve and give birth to children, the state does not want to protect, treat and teach citizens, everything is fair.

    Well what can I tell you!
    Let's arm yourself, kill each other !!
    Be probably happier !!
  • Setrac
    Setrac 25 July 2013 01: 10 New
    +2
    Quote: Yarbay
    Let's arm yourself, kill each other !!

    I wrote "cooperate with the police", not "fight crime", when the time comes to kill me the state will provide weapons.
    Nevertheless, if you, as they say, are not a "coward" and "tough pepper" and can fight back the offender, this does not mean victory over crime, the offender will retreat and next time choose a weaker person as a victim.
    You cowardly shift responsibility from your shoulders to strangers.
    A person who attacks me or my neighbor on the street is not my friend, but very much the other way around.
  • Misantrop
    Misantrop 24 July 2013 23: 40 New
    +3
    Quote: Yarbay
    A normal man in a normal state does not need a weapon !!!
    Do you think a man is NORMAL if he is not able to defend himself or his family without a lawyer, bodyguards and a bunch of assistants? The only tool of "NORMAL MAN IN A NORMAL STATE" is the wallet? Will the hired specialists decide the rest? laughing We have a different concept of NORMS request
    1. Yarbay
      Yarbay 25 July 2013 00: 03 New
      -1
      Quote: Misantrop
      Do you think a man is NORMAL if he is unable to defend himself or his family without a lawyer, bodyguards and a bunch of helpers?

      Do not exaggerate where I wrote it !!
      A real man will protect himself without weapons and from whom you want !!
      You just have the psychology of losers !!
      You are right, we have completely different CONCEPTS OF NORM and generally CONCEPTS !!
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 25 July 2013 00: 14 New
        +3
        Quote: Yarbay
        A real man will protect himself without weapons and from whom you want !!
        You just have the psychology of losers !!
        Despite the fact that:
        Quote: Yarbay
        Currently, there are no gangs with criminals, gopniks to fight fiercely if the thief feeds him an article for a long time !!
        Go to any area at any time of the day or night!
        On call instantly come!

        "It's easy to be brave when no one scares" (c) lol In your country, probably, even rabid dogs walk in formation and exclusively along deserted terrain. It’s just not clear why, in this case, the whole Moscow region is crammed with fugitives from this paradise on earth. Or has this good news not yet reached them?
      2. Yarbay
        Yarbay 25 July 2013 00: 26 New
        0
        Quote: Misantrop
        "It's easy to be brave when no one is afraid"

        So it has always been so !!
        Therefore, I say it is necessary that the state and law enforcement agencies are engaged in the protection of the population as it should be!
        Thank God we are doing it and it’s good !!
        In the mid-90s, almost all of us had weapons !!
        Mayhem was still one !!
        Therefore, I know what I am talking about!
        Life was much more dangerous !!

        I often visit many countries of the world, including Russia, but no one ever tries to encroach on my wallet !!!
    2. vjatsergey
      vjatsergey 25 July 2013 03: 27 New
      +2
      It turns out that when a guy was beaten to death by five scumbags, he was not a real man ?! And he was alone with his mother and only came from the army. And if he had a trunk, maybe everything else would be otherwise.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • AK-47
    AK-47 24 July 2013 21: 20 New
    +4
    Quote: Setrac
    I’ll invite you to my house and shoot you and they will justify me?

    No, psychos don't have weapons.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 24 July 2013 21: 24 New
      -2
      Quote: AK-47
      No, psychos don't have weapons.

      Strange, the military enlistment office did not notice that I was crazy tongue
      1. AK-47
        AK-47 24 July 2013 21: 36 New
        +1
        Quote: Setrac
        Strange, the military enlistment office did not notice that I was crazy

        I am not about you. A normal person will not shoot at a guest, and an abnormal certificate for the purchase of weapons will not be given. So that the scenario you brought leads to a prison or a psychiatric hospital.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 24 July 2013 21: 46 New
          0
          Quote: AK-47
          I am not about you.

          The minus is not mine, my plus, the single minus causes me a cognitive dissonance, which I try to fix, minus two I can’t fix, so I don’t react in any way.
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 24 July 2013 21: 59 New
            +1
            Quote: Setrac
            The minus is not mine, my plus, the single minus causes me a cognitive dissonance, which I try to fix, minus two I can’t fix, so I don’t react in any way.

            Almost the same, except that I still try to add. With that rare exception, if CATEGORALLY disagree with what was written. Then I don't touch the "plus"
  • domokl
    domokl 24 July 2013 20: 54 New
    +3
    Quote: evgen762
    Need LAW. Climbed into my house - I can shoot. And it is necessary to revise the article on the excess of self-defense

    It is from this that one needs to dance. The law on self-defense is needed. Now, almost any use of weapons, even by law enforcement officers, not to mention ordinary citizens, is checked by the prosecutor.
  • Masterzserg
    Masterzserg 25 July 2013 13: 24 New
    +1
    Quote: evgen762
    Climbed into my house - I can shoot.
    I’ll drag you into my house, because you put your tarantike in my parking space, and I shoot you, will you have time to get your gun? Question. And your law will protect me.
  • dmitreach
    dmitreach 24 July 2013 22: 49 New
    +2
    In our region 5 years ago there was a striking example.
    A pensioner-watchman of a dacha cooperative with a gun came across 3 young men (up to 20 years old) who robbed cottages. One of them went to the watchman with threats, the last got scared, slipped and pulled the trigger. The result - a failed criminal died in a hospital. Despite the support of the population, the pensioner was not given parole, but imprisonment. I do not remember the timing and mode.


    The watchman of the horticultural association Alexander Tkachuk, who shot a 19-year-old robber, was sentenced to five years in high security.

    This process caused a huge public outcry. It was closely watched not only by Penza summer residents, but also by their colleagues from other regions of Russia: Bryansk, Smolensk, Krasnodar, Barnaul. They sent telegrams in support of Tkachuk and raised his name to the shield of the fight against theft, which flourishes in summer cottages. When the verdict was read out in the Penza District Court, the hall could hardly accommodate everyone who wanted to be present at the end of the sad tragedy.

     Blackgrifon, here is the story:
    http://www.rg.ru/2008/08/28/vorydach.html
    Idiocy - whipping through the edge.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 24 July 2013 23: 39 New
      +1
      Quote: dmitreach
      Blackgrifon, here is the story:
      http://www.rg.ru/2008/08/28/vorydach.html
      Idiocy - whipping through the edge.

      For example, a watchman could shoot into the air, shoot at the wheels, a car with stolen things is an argument, if attacked, shoot at the legs. And right on the joke:
      The offender was killed by a warning shot in the stomach.
      1. dmitreach
        dmitreach 25 July 2013 00: 02 New
        +3
        He could, but could he be stumbled. Only this is all the subjunctive and other lyrics.
        However, it is a fact: SOCIETY Hired him, GIVING POWERS. Democracy iti! Almost a Policeman, in the original - vocabulary, sense of the word ... He, again, in a sense, was "on duty", and not "the primus repaired." Here is just one problem - the state is jealous, although it cannot provide law and order or even an adequate law.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 25 July 2013 00: 41 New
          -1
          Quote: dmitreach
          He could, but could he be stumbled. Only this is all the subjunctive and other lyrics.

          That's right, we will not talk about what he could, we will talk about what he should do. He was not guarding Fort Knox, he had to remember the criminals, the car, write down the number and call the police, it was theoretically possible to damage the car, shoot a radiator and wait for the police to arrive.
          1. dmitreach
            dmitreach 25 July 2013 01: 03 New
            +3
            Well, that’s what we have. I re-read the topic. (“Intentionally, in the course of a conflict caused by a sudden personal hostility, with the aim of causing death”) Not knowledge of the law and emotions that prevailed.
            But!
            Victim - third year student legal Faculty Dmitry Kudryashov.
            "Future YurYst" tried to "take a weak" old man ... It did not work. They carried six. Moral: do not cringe, on the elderly with a gun. Especially if you're a thief. Even if you know the laws (for almost jyurYst and other youth CHSV) in the grave, this is monopenisual.
            Dmitry Kudryashov received the "Darwin Prize" because he is worthy.
  • Pimply
    Pimply 24 July 2013 21: 28 New
    +6
    Take for example Moldova, where the trunks were allowed. Or those US states where there is legalization for hidden wearing. Statistics show a decrease in crimes against the individual.
  • svp67
    svp67 24 July 2013 18: 15 New
    +1
    Oh, how beautiful everything is "on paper", but in reality ... If now the population has weapons in their hands, then I don't even know how many victims this will lead to at the first stage. Weapon possession is a great responsibility to other people, and many of our people just lack this quality. The car is also a kind of weapon, and look what is happening on the roads ... We must teach people to be responsible, then the issue of weapons can be resolved.
    1. Kars
      Kars 24 July 2013 18: 21 New
      12
      Who wants to have a weapon that has it. Who has money that has it, who is connected with crime that has it. Who does not have a weapon?
      1. Gato
        Gato 24 July 2013 18: 41 New
        +6
        Quote: Kars
        Who doesn't have a weapon?

        The one with whom the hair is cut.
      2. SPACE
        SPACE 24 July 2013 18: 52 New
        +4
        Quote: Kars
        He who wants to have a weapon has it. Whoever has money has it, whoever is connected with crime has it. Who doesn't have a weapon?

        He has no rights. "God made us different, Colt equalized everyone."
      3. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 24 July 2013 19: 58 New
        0
        Quote: Kars
        Who doesn't have a weapon?


        Kars! In general, I agree with you, but there is one "BUT". The current legislation does not allow the use of weapons for self-defense purposes and thus not incur criminal punishment (on paper - it does, there are even precedents, but 99% sit for exceeding the limits of self-defense). As a result, many who have the opportunity to legally acquire a traumatic person or something similar abandon this idea.
        1. Kars
          Kars 24 July 2013 20: 14 New
          +2
          Quote: Blackgrifon
          the opportunity to legally acquire a traumatic or something similarly abandon this idea

          To buy or not to buy is also the RIGHT of a person. If a normal society is of course. I personally if I had the right, I would have bought ATGMs myself. There’s no place to put the tank.
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 24 July 2013 22: 06 New
            0
            Quote: Kars
            To buy or not to buy is also the RIGHT of a person.


            I agree - the right to protect your family, your home and property, yourself - this is a real right. But what is the use of acquisition opportunities if you cannot use it for good purposes?
            1. Kars
              Kars 24 July 2013 23: 51 New
              +3
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              You can not use it for good purposes?

              If it is possible to legally buy, then it will be possible to use it if you wish. But there isn’t that, it can just lie down on the shelf. Having a weapon does not mean using it without fail. And applying a short barrel - I learned the rules of behavior with weapons in an hour class when he went to the bullet shooting section, and since then has not killed anyone, and has not shot himself in the foot.
              1. Yarbay
                Yarbay 25 July 2013 00: 07 New
                +1
                Quote: Kars
                I learned the rules of behavior with weapons in an hour in the third grade when I went to the bullet shooting section, and since then I have not killed anyone, and I have not shot my leg.

                You were seen smart and incredibly lucky)))))
                Lucky you!!))
              2. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 25 July 2013 20: 02 New
                0
                Quote: Kars
                But no, it just can lie on a shelf. To have a weapon does not mean to use it without fail.


                Kars! I’m not saying that it must be applied if necessary - I’m not a maniac :) Another thing is the gap in the legislation, when the institution of self-defense is somehow perverted. That is the main problem, in my opinion.
          2. Pimply
            Pimply 24 July 2013 22: 13 New
            +2
            And in the States, people own tanks and 8)
        2. Misantrop
          Misantrop 24 July 2013 20: 23 New
          +2
          Quote: Blackgrifon
          there is one "BUT"
          Not one, two. Second, only strictly defined sections of the population can legally acquire injury in Ukraine. This is not Russia for you. For a bribe - easily, legally - NO
        3. Setrac
          Setrac 24 July 2013 20: 29 New
          +2
          Quote: Blackgrifon
          there are even precedents, but 99% sit for exceeding the limits of self-defense

          Because people do not know how to use weapons, so as not to sit down later! This must be taught before licensing the firearm.
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 24 July 2013 22: 13 New
            +1
            Quote: Setrac
            Because people do not know how to use weapons, so as not to sit down later! This must be taught before licensing the firearm.


            Yes, you will not use it in any way, so as not to sit down, unless you are "in execution".
            Any of your actions will be answered - "exceeded the limits of self-defense." Five people with bats climbed onto the man - they started beating them, and he shot their paws. So even if it turns out that he contrived and preventive to do, so all the same - they will sew serious harm.
            This is idiocy, but the fact remains - either all the figures should lie down and evidence of a stay that was defended not to remain, or there should be evidence that the actions of the attackers by 105% spoke of their desire to take their lives and that they also had funds similar to those that the defender applied. I'm not kidding.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 24 July 2013 22: 36 New
              0
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              It is not joke.

              And all five after the first shot continued to attack? If you shot all five from a safe distance - where is self-defense here?
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 24 July 2013 19: 53 New
      +8
      Quote: svp67
      If the population now has arms on its hands, I don’t even know how many victims this will lead to at the first stage.
      After the war in the country, the arms in the hands of the population were rampant. Especially in the European part of the country. And what, they shot each other? On the contrary, a sharp number of shooting cases occurred in the 90s, when a huge number of barrels received CRIMINAL, leaving the rest of the country unarmed. Then the rich additionally armed themselves. In fact, those who are armed with law and order do not care about the high hill are now armed. Some kind of shooting is going on, no one is arguing. But why is it believed that it will become more if the right to weapons LAWFUL part of the population?
      1. svp67
        svp67 24 July 2013 21: 09 New
        0
        Quote: Misantrop
        After the war in the country, the arms in the hands of the population were rampant. Especially in the European part of the country. And what, they shot each other?
        Then the war ran into satiety, now the situation is somewhat different ...
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 25 July 2013 10: 21 New
          -1
          Quote: svp67
          Then in the war they ran to their fill
          Fighters shot, and after their return home access to weapons was given to their FAMILIES. Already those to "shot their fill" can NOT be attributed in ANY way. Moreover, a lot of weapons fell into the hands of criminals. But only those were aware that, breaking into someone else's house, you can get a bullet into the confusion in the vast majority of cases. From the familiar to the weapon of the pros. So there was no surge in armed crime (again, with huge number of trunks available)
    3. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 24 July 2013 19: 55 New
      +2
      Quote: svp67
      Oh, how beautiful everything is "on paper", but in reality ... If now the population has weapons in their hands, then I don't even know how many victims this will lead to at the first stage.


      So this is not about universal permission to own a gun. It is still possible to acquire it (at least traumatic), but the whole "salt" is in the possibility to use it legally. But it is enough to change a couple of norms in the field of self-defense and the problem will actually be resolved.
      1. Rakti-kali
        Rakti-kali 24 July 2013 21: 07 New
        +3
        Quote: Blackgrifon
        But it’s enough to change a couple of standards in the field of self-defense and the problem will be virtually resolved.

        The most interesting regulatory framework is ready. http://www.rg.ru/2012/10/03/plenum-dok.html
        The problem in law enforcement practice - for some reason, our beloved courts consider it normal to spit on the recommendations of the body ensuring the correct and uniform application of laws by the courts and giving explanations and interpretations of the rule of law.
        Well, of course, do not forget about corruption in FRA.
      2. svp67
        svp67 24 July 2013 21: 10 New
        0
        Quote: Blackgrifon
        but the whole "salt" is in the possibility to legally apply it

        I agree ...
    4. evgen762
      evgen762 24 July 2013 20: 13 New
      +5
      Excuse me, are there really few hunting trunks among the population? But they kill many more with kitchen knives, screwdrivers, and dresco, too - to ban?
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 25 July 2013 20: 06 New
        0
        Quote: evgen762
        But they kill many more with kitchen knives, screwdrivers, and dresco, too - to ban?


        Kitchen utensils are, in general, WMD :) more people died from it than from the atomic, biological and chemical combined.
    5. AlNikolaich
      AlNikolaich 24 July 2013 23: 02 New
      +7
      Quote: svp67
      If the population now has arms on its hands, I don’t even know how many victims this will lead to at the first stage.

      So excuse me, no one canceled natural selection ... If in the 90s frost was mowed by the same frost, then in the 2000s no one "wets" and there are too many of them ... And the current law enforcement agencies make too little effort to sending this filth to the bunk!
      Quote: svp67
      The possession of weapons is a great responsibility to other people, and many of our people just do not have this quality. A car is also a kind of weapon, and look what is happening on the roads ...

      So I'm talking about scum, including on the roads ...
      They'll get nasty, cut them off, then flap their wings, like, "What are you? Are you sick?", Or even out of trauma they will smack ...
      As soon as the cattle have an alternative to be shot, there will be a responsibility, like people, and the desire to be rude and defy oneself will be lifted ...
  • Gato
    Gato 24 July 2013 18: 21 New
    10
    Hm .. The Swiss keep at home fighting infantry weapons - and nothing, mass shootings have not yet been observed. Maybe because their government is not at all afraid of its own citizens?
    A company is being maintained in the states for folding the 2nd constitutional amendment, which says a lot. True, the National Rifle Association is trying to flutter, but how long will it last?
    For us, the armed people are an apocalyptic nightmare of power.
    1. svp67
      svp67 24 July 2013 18: 26 New
      +1
      Quote: Gato
      Maybe because their government is not at all afraid of its own citizens?
      or maybe because from the 14 century it has been kept by people, and from kindergarten responsibility has been brought up, and that they know that if someone who violates the storage issue, for example, opens zinc with cartridges, then the punishment will be inevitable and quick ...
      1. Gato
        Gato 24 July 2013 18: 38 New
        +6
        Quote: svp67
        or maybe because from the 14 century it has been kept by people, and from kindergarten responsibility has been brought up, and that they know that if someone who violates the storage issue, for example, opens zinc with cartridges, then the punishment will be inevitable and quick ...

        And that too. In addition, as far as I know, according to their laws, any citizen who witnesses a crime MUST use this weapon to prevent it, and not wait for the police. This is also an additional incentive not to arrange battles.
        1. svp67
          svp67 24 July 2013 18: 45 New
          -1
          Quote: Gato
          who witnessed the crime, MUST use this weapon to prevent it, and not wait for the police.

          And here the girl was condemned for the fact that she did not climb with her fists at the "thugs" who beat her friend, but tried to protect him with a "traumatic". Two worlds - two justice ...
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 24 July 2013 20: 02 New
            +2
            Quote: svp67
            And here the girl was condemned for the fact that she did not climb with her fists at the "thugs" who beat her friend, but tried to protect him with a "traumatic". Two worlds - two justice ...


            These are issues of self-defense law, not gun ownership. In our country, according to statistics, 90% of those who have used various means for self-defense receive deadlines.
          2. Setrac
            Setrac 24 July 2013 20: 16 New
            +1
            Quote: svp67
            And here the girl was condemned for the fact that she did not climb with her fists at the "thugs" who beat her friend, but tried to protect him with a "traumatic". Two worlds - two justice ...

            Why are you lying so frankly?
            Thugs - the girl’s friends, the wounded - the one who was beaten, the girl was not in danger, in fact, like the fighters, the fight was sluggish and the girl’s friends won.
            And then this doctor wanted to shoot, how did she turn out to have weapons?
            1. svp67
              svp67 24 July 2013 20: 25 New
              +2
              Quote: Setrac
              Why are you lying so frankly?
              Well, as they say, I saw


              I personally have no doubt that the knife was there - a very characteristic position of the brush, but the investigator does not see this ...
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 24 July 2013 21: 12 New
                0
                Quote: svp67
                I personally have no doubt that the knife was there - a very characteristic position of the brush, but the investigator does not see this ...

                This video was shown in another topic dedicated to this particular occasion. Melee weapons belonged to the girl’s friends (knife and hatchet), but it’s not even how the guys fought, the fact is that nothing threatens the girl, it’s not just an excess of self-defense, there is no self-defense.
                The "characteristic position of the hand" not only in the one who uses the knife, but also tightly, who sees the knife in the opponent's hand, this does not prove anything, and a bullet from a trauma in the lungs is a serious argument. She had no idea that a traumatic person could be killed from a short distance. It is about this article that we need not a ban, but we need to develop a culture of handling weapons.
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 24 July 2013 21: 15 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Setrac
                  What is needed is not a ban, but a culture of handling weapons must be developed.
                  "And we'll pour water when they learn to swim" (c) laughing Let us all develop a culture of eating black caviar wink
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 24 July 2013 21: 31 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Misantrop
                    "And we'll pour water when they learn to swim" (c) Let's all develop the culture of eating black caviar together

                    Just like drivers, go through a medical examination, learn (you need to organize courses, paid naturally), pass exams, have a document for each unit of weapon (like technical standard for a car), register weapons in miles ... police. Well, it’s also necessary to work on a list of categories of people who cannot be given weapons. Well there, the rules for storing weapons.
                    1. Misantrop
                      Misantrop 24 July 2013 22: 08 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Setrac
                      as drivers, go through a medical examination, learn (you need to organize courses, paid naturally), pass exams, have a document for each unit of weapon (like technical standard for a car), register the weapon in miles ... to the police.
                      So you can teach the rules, but not the culture. Culture has been developed for YEARS AND DECADES. It can be destroyed in a few years, but you can earn ... The same Cossacks, or Siberians, is there a lot of bad gunshot there? Those Cossacks, not current, for whom a can opener would be a saber. Alas, a man runs wild fast ... request
                2. svp67
                  svp67 24 July 2013 21: 26 New
                  0
                  Quote: Setrac
                  Melee weapons belonged to the girl's friends

                  As far as I understand, the knife is on the opposite side. And the girl did not attack anyone, with the goal of either taking away, she just wanted to stop or stop beating her friend. And by the way, where did the friend get stab wounds and cuts, himself out of harm? In this case, self-defense is not exceeded?
                  1. rereture
                    rereture 24 July 2013 21: 32 New
                    0
                    A friend had a tourist hatchet.
                  2. Setrac
                    Setrac 24 July 2013 21: 52 New
                    +1
                    Quote: svp67
                    And the girl did not attack anyone, with the goal of either taking anything away, she simply wanted to stop or stop beating her friend.

                    I will repeat for the most assiduous.
                    Nothing threatened the girl, she had no right to shoot, this is the first.
                    The second - at the time of the shot it was the victim who was beaten, and not the hypothetical "friend" of the girl.
                    Thirdly, the defense understood the girl's guilt and tried to draw public attention to this incident, to present the criminal as a victim, for example, the media stated that the "attackers" were persons of Caucasian nationality, although in reality one was Russian, the other was Tatar.
                    1. Misantrop
                      Misantrop 24 July 2013 22: 12 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Setrac
                      she had no right to shoot
                      She has rights kill was not, let's not confuse the concept. But her "clapperboard" is categorically not capable of killing, it was hammered into her, persuading her to buy. So she used to STOP THE FIGHT. Or do you want to say that she was going to KILL this guy? So then they usually shoot in the head ...
                      1. rereture
                        rereture 24 July 2013 22: 14 New
                        0
                        If you believe the investigation, she aimed at the head, but this injury failed, you aim at one part of the body and you fall into another ...
                      2. Setrac
                        Setrac 24 July 2013 22: 47 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        She had no right to kill, we will not confuse the concept.

                        That's it, do not confuse the concept, in this case she did not have the right to shoot a man! I’ll pay attention that she shot in the presence of a police officer.
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        Or want to say that she was going to kill this guy?

                        She did not know what to do, she wanted to try.
                      3. Yarbay
                        Yarbay 24 July 2013 23: 20 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Setrac
                        She did not know what to do, she wanted to try.

                        and many want to try it !!!
                        You plus ++++
                      4. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 24 July 2013 23: 44 New
                        +1
                        the pistol is burning the frog ... it is being treated. in her case for a period. in normal people - by firing line, in the appropriate institution.
                    2. Misantrop
                      Misantrop 24 July 2013 23: 53 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Setrac
                      she wanted to try

                      She didn't try to poke her fingers into the socket with the aim of "trying"? Or did they not get through? lol
                    3. Blackgrifon
                      Blackgrifon 25 July 2013 20: 08 New
                      0
                      Quote: Setrac
                      She did not know what to do, she wanted to try.

                      The logic of the lady ...


                      The question is - where did the grass come from? She bought it or not? Was there permission?
                  3. dmitreach
                    dmitreach 24 July 2013 23: 41 New
                    0
                    Then why did she shoot the recumbent, in the back? Emotions prevailed?
                  4. rereture
                    rereture 24 July 2013 23: 44 New
                    0
                    She’s a fool, that’s it.
                  5. dmitreach
                    dmitreach 25 July 2013 00: 04 New
                    +1
                    Well, I would say softer: without brains, despite the fact of studying at a law school.
            2. Rakti-kali
              Rakti-kali 24 July 2013 23: 35 New
              +2
              Quote: Setrac
              Nothing threatened the girl, she had no right to shoot, this is the first.

              10. When protecting against a socially dangerous attack involving violence dangerous to the life of the defender or another person, or with an immediate threat of such violence (part 1 of article 37 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), as well as in cases provided for in part 2 [1] of article 37 Criminal Code, the defender has the right to inflict harm on the character of the infringing person.
              12. In the case of an infringement of several persons, the defender has the right to apply such measures of protection to any of the infringers, which are determined by the nature and danger of the actions all groups.
              The resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of September 27, 2012 N 19 Moscow

              Criminal Code Article 37. Necessary defense
              1. It is not a crime to harm an offending person in a state of necessary defense, that is, when protecting the person and the rights of the defender or other personsprotected by the law of the interests of society or the state from socially dangerous encroachment, if this encroachment was fraught with violence dangerous to the life of the defender or another person, or with an immediate threat of such violence.

              2. Protection from infringement, not associated with violence, dangerous for the life of the defending or other person, or with an immediate threat of such violence, is legitimate, if the limits of the necessary defense were not exceeded, that is, deliberate actions that are clearly not appropriate to the nature and danger encroachment.

              2.1. Do not exceed the limits of the necessary defense of the defending person, if this person, because of the unexpectedness of the encroachment, could not objectively assess the degree and nature of the danger of the attack.

              (part two. 1 is introduced by the Federal Law of 08.12.2003 N 162-ФЗ)

              3. The provisions of this article are equally applicable to all persons, regardless of their professional or other special training and official position, as well as regardless of the possibility to avoid socially dangerous encroachment or to seek help from other persons or authorities.


              http://www.consultant.ru/popular/ukrf/10_9.html#p339
              © ConsultantPlus, 1992-2013
              After that, I am not so sure that the girl had no right to shoot.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 25 July 2013 00: 16 New
                -2
                Quote: Rakti-Kali
                After that, I am not so sure that the girl had no right to shoot.

                Quote: Rakti-Kali
                if at the same time it was not allowed to exceed the limits of the necessary defense, that is, deliberate actions that clearly do not correspond to the nature and danger of the attack.

                This is what she did.
                In this case, the danger to the lives of other people was represented by a crazy girl with a gun and her scumbag friends with knives, and not two unarmed guys who rebuffed the criminals.
        2. dmitreach
          dmitreach 24 July 2013 23: 40 New
          0
          It was a hatchet knife
          Exaggerating ... like this
      2. rereture
        rereture 24 July 2013 21: 12 New
        0
        Very high-quality video to draw conclusions. The brawl began because of a remark, since the girl’s friend had a tourist hatchet on his belt, by the way not a friend was beaten, but her friend was beaten.
      3. Yarbay
        Yarbay 24 July 2013 22: 58 New
        +2
        Quote: svp67
        I personally have no doubt that the knife was there - a very characteristic position of the brush, but the investigator does not see this ...

        Very vain in the first place!
        Secondly, she finishes off a helpless person!
        They were drunk!
        The investigator is doing everything right !!
        It was * cut * that attacked these people and the ax was taken from him!
        Threw an ax and went with a small knife?)))))
  • dmitreach
    dmitreach 24 July 2013 23: 38 New
    +2
    svp67, you're talking about Sasha Lotkova. Well here is a clinical case. I advise you to research the topic before writing nonsense.
  • Yarbay
    Yarbay 25 July 2013 13: 17 New
    0
    Quote: svp67
    for the fact that she did not climb with her fists on the "thugs" who beat her friend

    Yes men are not at all!
    70 percent is not that trusting a weapon to leave a house is not recommended!
  • Rakti-kali
    Rakti-kali 24 July 2013 21: 09 New
    +1
    Quote: Gato
    Moreover, as far as I know, according to their laws, any citizen who witnesses a crime MUST use this weapon to prevent it, and not wait for the police. This is also an additional incentive not to arrange battles.

    According to ours, he also has the right. http://www.rg.ru/2012/10/03/plenum-dok.html
    The problem with law enforcement.
  • AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 24 July 2013 23: 11 New
    +3
    Quote: svp67
    or maybe because from the 14 century it has been kept by people, and from kindergarten responsibility has been brought up, and that they know that if someone who violates the storage issue, for example, opens zinc with cartridges, then the punishment will be inevitable and quick ...

    Damn guys! But was it not so in the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union before the 30s? Only under Stalin there was a ban on weapons other than hunting ... Yes, and after it, to the present day. But under Stalin, people were protected, and now? And our people have no less responsibility than Europeans! Prove the opposite!
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 25 July 2013 10: 29 New
      +1
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      Only under Stalin was a ban on weapons other than hunting ...
      Surprise, under Stalin, weapons (as well as the right to use them) had not only the police and the military, but also economic workers. My grandfather (officer) kept the gun at HOME (and not in the armory of the unit)
  • AK-47
    AK-47 24 July 2013 21: 28 New
    +4
    Quote: Gato
    For us, the armed people are an apocalyptic nightmare of power.

    That is why law-abiding citizens will never have weapons. And the law-abiding had, is and will be.
  • Alexey M
    Alexey M 24 July 2013 18: 23 New
    -2
    How many people have suffered from traumatic injuries in a year? So let's give these fools military weapons so that they will surely kill them. Now they will throw cars at the bombs and shoot with guns. And not any state control will help. We can still buy rights, certificates, weapons permissions. If someone doesn’t have a feeling fullness without a pistol in his pants there is something to the psychiatrist.
    1. vadimN
      vadimN 24 July 2013 18: 26 New
      13
      Let me disagree with you. Injuries should be prohibited, because treating them like toys is a non-lethal weapon ... That’s what they put into action when necessary and not necessary.
      When a person realizes that for a stupid shot he can go for life - believe me, those who want to take out the "barrel" once again will drastically decrease. Weapons discipline! If it is real, of course, and not "rubber shooting".
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 24 July 2013 20: 02 New
        +3
        Quote: vadimN
        Weapons discipline!


        I fully support you.
        1. tilovaykrisa
          tilovaykrisa 24 July 2013 20: 18 New
          -3
          Uh-huh, gopniks, criminals, have a sense of discipline, now they start to shoot at the command synchronously without the warning phrase "there are seeds" or "Why is this brother so not talkative"
          1. AlNikolaich
            AlNikolaich 24 July 2013 23: 17 New
            +2
            Quote: tilovaykrisa
            Uh-huh, gopniks, criminals, have a sense of discipline, now they start to shoot at the command synchronously without the warning phrase "there are seeds" or "Why is this brother so not talkative"

            Yeah, and right now they politely offer you to give cash, and then thank and roll off ...
            Do not write nonsense!
            As they introduce legal short-barreled, the gopota will disappear as a class. Libo- "on figs it is necessary, still bang ...", or-really bang!
            1. rereture
              rereture 24 July 2013 23: 21 New
              -1
              Quote: AlNikolaich
              and right now, they politely offer you to give cash, and then thank and roll off


              Not politely, but they offer to give the mobile phone money, and in most cases they roll off if you give it away.
            2. Yarbay
              Yarbay 24 July 2013 23: 42 New
              0
              Quote: AlNikolaich
              As they introduce legal short-barreled, the gopota will disappear as a class. Libo- "on figs it is necessary, still bang ...", or-really bang!

              I'm so sorry for you!))))
              You will be unpleasantly surprised that they will not only not disappear, but will become even more impudent !!
              1. AlNikolaich
                AlNikolaich 25 July 2013 00: 44 New
                +4
                Quote: Yarbay
                I'm so sorry for you!))))
                You will be unpleasantly surprised that they will not only not disappear, but will become even more impudent !!

                Greetings Alibek!
                In my hometown, in the 90 years, three criminal wars took place. And somewhere in the second half of the 90's, most ordinary men associated with business, trucking and agriculture acquired arms, both legal and non-existent. Literally within a few months everything was settled down! Missed out, scumbags and other scum. And the steepness of the various wicks turned, especially after the murders of several criminal authorities. And this silence was until the middle of the 2000's. When they got scared. Law enforcement agencies must be given their due. Then they began to work as they should. Witnessed this from the inside. Many guys died in the service, blessed memory of them! But the rampant crime was won by the work of the police, and the presence of weapons in the population!
                Unfortunately, the authorities are now not the same as before, and they are taking away the last hope for self-defense in the form of the legal short-barrels.
                Do not spare me, I'm not really worried, if anything, I’ll figure it out without a barrel. It's a shame to see and realize that 10, which has not been seen and heard for years, has crept out onto the streets again, and no one is taking action. And I have a wife and two children ...
                1. Yarbay
                  Yarbay 25 July 2013 00: 55 New
                  -1
                  Quote: AlNikolaich
                  10 crawled out into the streets again, and no one takes action. And I have a wife and two children.

                  Alexey Nikolaevich I assure you that you are mistaken!
                  Not the weapons of the population, but the police then did their job !!
                  If they wouldn’t do your job, your weapons, or rather the weapons that the population had, would not help your city !!
                  1. AlNikolaich
                    AlNikolaich 25 July 2013 02: 26 New
                    +4
                    Quote: Yarbay
                    If they didn’t do your job, your weapon, or rather, the weapon that the population had, would not help your city

                    Dear Alibek. At that moment I worked in law enforcement bodies (in the technical department), and had a service weapon, but fortunately I never used it for its intended purpose. In my experience, criminals are terribly afraid of the very possibility of armed rebuff. The idea that an attacking object may have a firearm instantly drives the criminal into a stupor and panic! (They’ll kill, damn it!)
                    Only a certain, small part of the frostbitten bandits is not afraid of weapons, fortunately now almost absent (for well-known reasons).
                    Most would-be criminals will refuse to commit a crime, thinking about the very likelihood of a retaliatory use of firearms against them! And information like: "Vanyok from the next street decided to wrinkle the sucker, and he filled it up from the trunk ..." will give good information for thought. They want to live the same!
                2. Anti
                  Anti 25 July 2013 01: 09 New
                  +2
                  Quote: AlNikolaich
                  Unfortunately, the authorities are now not the same as before, and they are taking away the last hope for self-defense in the form of the legal short-barrels.


                  The surge of crime, lawlessness and mass shootings in cinema, cafes, schools, on the streets, etc., as a rule take place at weapon-free points, downs will never go where citizens have weapons, because they know in advance that they can get the olive tree. I can not understand the stubborn jackie request
    2. evgen762
      evgen762 24 July 2013 20: 19 New
      +5
      You know, my friends who have an injury believe that this is not a flying weapon and therefore they plant as they want. But if there was a flying trunk, then the attitude towards it would be different.
  • Alexandr1973
    Alexandr1973 24 July 2013 18: 34 New
    +3
    In Moldova and Romania, weapons were allowed - and what are we worse?
  • tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 24 July 2013 18: 45 New
    -3
    It’s impossible, objectively, to allow injuries and look who got them first? It will also be the case with battle trunks, 99% of the inhabitants will simply take them away and kill them, any employee, soldier will understand me.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 24 July 2013 20: 00 New
      +2
      Quote: tilovaykrisa
      in 99% of ordinary people they will simply be taken away and killed by them
      Brad, sorry. It's like "personal cars will be taken away and then crushed by them." There are not many frostbitten ones who go to an armed man with their bare hands. And if the perpetrator is initially aimed at murder, then the absence of a weapon on the victim will not save her.
      1. tilovaykrisa
        tilovaykrisa 24 July 2013 20: 25 New
        -2
        Here I’ll try to answer you: you, as a person who had no previous experience in owning weapons, argue something like this: there was a gun barrel fired, the law was justified.
        But what happens in reality, "because of their laziness, after receiving a weapon, people will not go to courses, and they will not be ready to PSYCHOLOGICALLY use weapons, some, on the contrary, will develop excessive self-confidence that carrying a barrel in his pocket will be able to resolve issues by which he would have passed by or called the police, and again to get this one thing, but to apply something completely different, because you are not a criminal, you do not plan and do not expect to hide later, you don’t have psychological readiness, but the criminal has it, In addition, do not forget that the responsibility will be serious , for unlawful use, wearing, storage, etc., add our Presumption of Guilt, any lawyer will tell you that at the moment it is more profitable to kill the attacker than to injure, + corruption in the issuance of licenses, + drunk people, but it will be a mess, and the authorities will scream.
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 24 July 2013 20: 40 New
          +2
          Quote: tilovaykrisa
          You as a person who had no previous experience with weapons

          Based on what such confidence?
          Quote: tilovaykrisa
          because of their laziness, people after receiving weapons will not go to courses, and will not be ready PSYCHOLOGICALLY use weapons

          First, give it out to everyone, and only then think what to do about it? belay If you do so, then this is exactly what will happen. And who of the supporters of the legalization of the short-barrel calls for THIS?
          Quote: tilovaykrisa
          RESPONSIBILITY will be introduced serious, for unlawful use, wearing, storage, etc., add our Presumption of guilt

          So far, on the contrary, they are trying to rob, rob, rob and poison. Using just the opponents of the resolution of the right to self-defense for this
          1. tilovaykrisa
            tilovaykrisa 24 July 2013 20: 45 New
            0
            By virtue of your statements.
            Define the criteria for issuing trunks without violating the constitution of the Russian Federation.
            Where is this going? here nobody for example nobody tries to rob me, to poison and so on.
            1. Yarbay
              Yarbay 24 July 2013 23: 28 New
              0
              Quote: tilovaykrisa
              By virtue of your statements.
              Define the criteria for issuing trunks without violating the constitution of the Russian Federation.
              Where is this going? here nobody for example nobody tries to rob me, to poison and so on.

              + + + + +
            2. Misantrop
              Misantrop 25 July 2013 10: 36 New
              -1
              Quote: tilovaykrisa
              without violating the constitution of the Russian Federation.

              Put in front of you next to the Constitution of the Russian Federation for different years. Read it yourself about the rights. request
            3. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 25 July 2013 20: 15 New
              0
              Quote: tilovaykrisa
              Define the criteria for issuing trunks without violating the constitution of the Russian Federation.


              How do you find the current requirements for owners (including the future) of traumatism do not suit - and the medical board, and mandatory courses, and a safe with checking?
        2. AlNikolaich
          AlNikolaich 24 July 2013 23: 36 New
          +3
          Quote: tilovaykrisa
          any lawyer will tell you that at the moment it’s more profitable to kill the attacker than to hurt,

          What is true is true! One acquaintance of a taxi driver was tried. They threw a noose around his neck, he struck back with a screwdriver, cut through the throat of the attacker. Gopnik barely pumped out. He became an invalid. Then in the courtroom the villain arranged such a concert that if it were not for the loyalty of the judge, the taxi driver would be blamed. And so, if the villain had been stabbed to death, there would have been no problems. All the evidence was on the side of the taxi driver, except for the sensual performance of the gopnik. In general, there is no person, no problem!
        3. p-159
          p-159 24 July 2013 23: 50 New
          +2
          I am writing about myself. Tatarstan in order to obtain a license to purchase is necessary; go through a medical commission, go through the entire mentoring of 7-8 rooms, bring in pieces. 3, to undergo mandatory training for 2 weeks (learn in 4 places in the republic), put a safe and an alarm regardless of the city-village, the district police officer report after talking with neighbors, listen to the dissuasion and if you get lucky after half a year you will receive. you bring the barrel to the registration, rewrite the data you go home and wait a month. something like this. the first barrel in rubles came out 30t.r clearance of about 60 and almost a year time. At the courses they explain in detail (the same cops) how much and for what they will plant., the norm for handling weapons (with shooting) is mandatory as for collectors. there is no desire to shoot just like that, they take it away with or without. With a smell I got caught by the district police officer, this one wasn’t taken to 2 locks, they took it away a couple of days, they took it from my wife for a couple of days, neighbors cursed and called the same way.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 25 July 2013 00: 23 New
            0
            Quote: p-159
            With a smell I got caught by the district police officer, this one wasn’t taken to 2 locks, they took it away a couple of days, they took it from my wife for a couple of days, neighbors cursed and called the same way.

            How do you trust a weapon? Are you masking well? Hand over until the irreparable happens.
    2. Yarosvet
      Yarosvet 24 July 2013 20: 30 New
      +2
      Quote: tilovaykrisa
      The same will be with war trunks

      Do you know the difference between military weapons and civil defense weapons?
    3. RA77
      RA77 24 July 2013 23: 09 New
      0
      Quote: tilovaykrisa
      in 99% of ordinary people they will simply be taken away and killed by them

      +. And over time, squeezing the trunks from citizens will be immediately upon leaving OrMag laughing
      1. Yarbay
        Yarbay 24 July 2013 23: 28 New
        -1
        Quote: RA77
        And over time, squeezing the trunks from citizens will be immediately upon leaving OrMag

        Also an option)))))
        Even with his wife and children will be lowered)))))))))
        Mlyn fighters))))
  • Humpty
    Humpty 24 July 2013 18: 50 New
    0
    What market is disappearing for dealers. Security will not add, but there will be problems.
    How interesting and who will determine the legality of the application. I have two acquaintances rewound like people for long terms for "exceeding self-defense." One of them served two (out of three) rapists who were nailed down with knives. Justice has estimated it at 10 years. Another scored seven, he repeated the feat of Ramon Mercader. It cost him seven years. In the examples given, a firearm was not used, only improvised means.
    1. tilovaykrisa
      tilovaykrisa 24 July 2013 18: 52 New
      +1
      So far, our country remains a rule of law only on paper and the very concept of self-defense has not been formed, and private property cannot be permitted.
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 24 July 2013 20: 06 New
        +4
        Quote: tilovaykrisa
        the concept of self-defense and private property cannot be allowed.


        These concepts exist both in the Civil Code and in the Criminal Code. As there are gaps in the legislation - the legislator did not think of what a citizen should do if gopniks with fittings climb on it - that’s all the problem.

        But let's not talk about the "rule of law" - this is a utopia. In Europe and America, with the desire for it, they reached the point of legalized sodomy. It is necessary to educate civil consciousness and respect for the law.
        1. tilovaykrisa
          tilovaykrisa 24 July 2013 20: 15 New
          0
          The rule of law means, first of all, the impartiality of the courts and the working principle of the presumption of innocence, and what does the gay have to do with it, well, kill the gopniks with a knife, for example, let's see what our femida tells you about our Criminal Code and Civil Code, and who else will prove that they climbed not to kiss but to kill you.
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 25 July 2013 20: 19 New
            0
            Quote: tilovaykrisa
            what our femida will tell you about our Criminal Code and Civil Code, and who else will prove that they climbed not to kiss but to kill you.


            She will say about exceeding the limits of self-defense - but these are the shortcomings of the law.
            But about the courts a different story. In practice, I know in the citizen. disputes between citizens and authorities, almost always the court takes the side of citizens.
    2. family tree
      family tree 24 July 2013 19: 56 New
      +2
      Quote: Humpty
      One served for two (out of three) rapists armed with knives nailed by a fist. Justice estimated this at 10 years old. The other was beaten by seven, he repeated the feat of Ramon Mercader. It cost him seven years
      Where is it so?
      Article 108. Murder committed when exceeding the limits of necessary defense or when exceeding the measures necessary to apprehend the person who committed the crime
      1. Murder committed when exceeding the limits of the necessary defense -
      is punished by restriction of freedom for the term up to two years or imprisonment for the same term.
      2. Murder committed when exceeding the measures necessary to apprehend the person who committed the crime -
      shall be punished by restraint of liberty for a term of up to three years or by imprisonment for the same period.
      CC RF
      Article 114. Causing serious or moderate bodily harm if the limits of necessary defense are exceeded or if the measures necessary to apprehend a person who committed a crime are exceeded
      1. Intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm committed when exceeding the limits of necessary defense -
      is punished by restriction of freedom for the term up to two years or imprisonment for the term up to one year.
      2. Intentional infliction of serious or moderate injury to health committed when exceeding the measures necessary to apprehend the person who committed the crime -
      is punished by restriction of freedom for the term up to two years or imprisonment for the same term.
      Ibid.
      1. p-159
        p-159 24 July 2013 23: 56 New
        -1
        in a fight, one comrade stabbed a villain with a bat on the head for 2 years уд ч з вышел вышел вышел вышел вышел другой другой другой другой другой другой сп сп другой другой другой другой другой другой другой другой другой другой другой год год год 8 XNUMX XNUMX в в в один один один один один One friend in the fray beat a scoundrel in the head for XNUMX years, the other sportsman gave a scoundrel once a mug once, XNUMX years without an oud in a particularly dangerous way
        1. Yarbay
          Yarbay 25 July 2013 00: 18 New
          0
          Quote: p-159
          another sportik once in the face gave a scoundrel too, 8 years without an udo as a particularly dangerous way

          Well, it makes sense, in many countries, if the offender stands in the fighting stance, then the police have the right to shoot to kill !!
          This is justifiably think!
      2. Humpty
        Humpty 25 July 2013 05: 19 New
        0
        family tree

        The law that drawbar could have had a national color under the Union.
    3. Misantrop
      Misantrop 24 July 2013 20: 06 New
      +6
      Quote: Humpty
      determine eligibility

      And you vote more for the prohibition of weapons, ANYWHERE. Then in general they will forbid to defend themselves (there is a police for this). What did your acquaintances have the right to do harm to the attackers? They are not employees of special forces in the performance of duties ... request
      That is the question, what supporters of the short-barrel are trying to force the authorities to give the citizens the RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE, and with the help of which this right will be realized, this is the second question. With a gun there are more chances than without him, and if you wish, they can also sue for the improper use of a meat grinder
      1. tilovaykrisa
        tilovaykrisa 24 July 2013 20: 28 New
        +1
        What prevents you from using a short-bore smoothbore for self-defense? I now have such a +2 hunting and 1 rifled, enough to protect the house and cottage,
        I don’t need a gun for example, which cannot be compared with the remaining action with 12 gauge.
        1. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 24 July 2013 23: 44 New
          +2
          Quote: tilovaykrisa
          I don’t need a gun for example

          If you do not need it, this does not mean that everyone does not need it.
          Quote: tilovaykrisa
          What prevents you from using a short-bore smoothbore for self-defense?

          Firstly, the law "On weapons", secondly, the Criminal Code. According to them, short-barreled weapons (weapons of less than a certain length) are not legal.
          Well, and thirdly, the gun is not the most convenient item for constant and even more secretive wearing.
        2. dmitreach
          dmitreach 25 July 2013 01: 18 New
          +2
          very simple: restriction on barrel length and weight.
          1. Rakti-kali
            Rakti-kali 25 July 2013 12: 13 New
            +1
            Quote: dmitreach
            very simple: restriction on barrel length and weight.

            At the moment, citizens of the Russian Federation do not have the right to own firearms capable of firing a shot with a length of less than 800 mm.
            Yes, actually, here: -
            6 Article. Restrictions on the circulation of civil and service weapons


            The following are prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation:

            1) turnover as a civil and service weapon:

            long-range firearms with a magazine (drum) capacity of more than 10 rounds, with the exception of sports weapons having a barrel or barrel length with a receiver less than 500 mm and a total weapon length of less than 800 mm, as well as having a design that allows it to be made less than 800 mm and at the same time the possibility of firing a shot is not lost;

            (in the edition of the Federal Law from 31.05.2010 N 111-FZ)


            http://www.consultant.ru/popular/weapon/40_1.html
            © ConsultantPlus, 1992-2013
            Agree is not very convenient for constant, especially hidden, wearing.
        3. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 25 July 2013 20: 24 New
          +1
          Quote: tilovaykrisa
          What prevents you from using a short-bore smoothbore for self-defense? I now have such a +2 hunting and 1 rifled, I have enough to protect the house and cottage, I do not need a gun for example, which can not be compared with the remaining action with 12 gauge.


          12 gauge against thieves is cruel :) but effective. But here, how then to prove to the judge that you are right - that is the question.
          And the essence, after all, is not in the ability to have, but in the ability to protect yourself and your family and at the same time not fall under the "exceeded the limits of self-defense."
  • Dimy4
    Dimy4 24 July 2013 19: 04 New
    +6
    Our Themis considers all law-abiding citizens to be cattle who cannot be defended. Majorities are allowed (so far?) Everything and they do not need permission for weapons, they already have it. As long as the state does not give a real right to protection against thugs, possession of weapons will be meaningless.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 24 July 2013 20: 08 New
      +1
      Quote: Dimy4
      As long as the state does not give a real right to protection against thugs, possession of weapons will be meaningless.
      What are we talking about. With the legalization of the short-barrel, the government will be FORCED to tackle this problem. And - to do it urgently, without chattering over the years long overdue problem
      1. tilovaykrisa
        tilovaykrisa 24 July 2013 20: 29 New
        -5
        Will be forced to do only one thing, namely to purchase a large number of bags for corpses and the opening of new prisons.
  • kotvov
    kotvov 24 July 2013 19: 17 New
    -3
    Yeah, if Khudyakov had a trunk, he would have figured out the thugs himself? Yes, he would have been flunked without letting this trunk get out. Are you few corpses?
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 24 July 2013 20: 12 New
      +1
      Quote: kotvov
      Yes, he would be overwhelmed without letting him get this very trunk.
      He was nearly overwhelmed. Just from the realization (quite motivated) of their IMPUNITY. By the way, IMHO, but if this deputy were from another party, who the hell would anyone find these scumbags, they simply would not be looking. And about Zhirinovsky it was precisely known that he would not leave it like that, so they tensed ...
  • mak210
    mak210 24 July 2013 19: 38 New
    +1
    Why are you comparing with the USA? There, any person is obliged to defend the Constitution with arms in hand, so owning it is the protection of the rights of citizens. Is this possible with us? Who came out to defend the Constitution when a drunken scumbag, legally removed from office, shot a legitimate Supreme Council from tanks?

    Reasoning on a similar topic is a simple concussion.
  • waisson
    waisson 24 July 2013 19: 56 New
    +1
    I didn’t debate, but we will have law-abiding citizens, deputies and all their henchmen and guilty elite and our loyal police, if you blow it to everyone except those who don’t go through medical medicine, then the person didn’t pay a fine for 100 rubles, he already experienced something on it yourself when traveling abroad?
  • krez-74
    krez-74 24 July 2013 20: 10 New
    0
    Armory lobby! laughing Not enough weapons that are already in the hands of the population?
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 24 July 2013 20: 28 New
      +2
      Quote: krez-74
      Not enough weapons that are already in the hands of the population?
      The population has not only weapons to hell on hand, but also money with material goods. It’s just that all this is distributed, let’s say, not quite evenly. Does it personally become much easier for you because Deripaska has earned another million? wink
  • Setrac
    Setrac 24 July 2013 20: 31 New
    +4
    What's better? Sit down? Or die?
    1. tilovaykrisa
      tilovaykrisa 24 July 2013 20: 36 New
      -5
      The question is not correct.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 24 July 2013 21: 19 New
        +4
        Quote: tilovaykrisa
        The question is not correct.

        I’ll put it right, what’s better if they put you in prison or raped your pregnant wife?
        What is a gun for? It is for such cases - an attack on the street. Are you ready to go to the ATM and give your salary to unclean knowledge of the laws of uncle?
        1. rereture
          rereture 24 July 2013 21: 30 New
          0
          Regarding the attack on the street, it happens unexpectedly, and usually from the back, this method is still common, the victim is stunned and his pockets are turned out. It is very sad if they take away the toy and do things with it. But to protect the house, the most)
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 24 July 2013 22: 16 New
            +4
            Quote: rereture
            if they take the toy away and do things with it ...
            ... then in case of their capture, they will automatically attack you (as the barrel is LEGAL, with the results of a ballistic examination). And then already UNIVERSAL will not be a one-off attack, but a stable organized crime group (for which the time frame is significantly more significant). Bandyuki - people in this regard are literate, they do not need it. So such a horror story does not roll ... request
            1. rereture
              rereture 24 July 2013 22: 20 New
              -1
              You didn’t think that usually bandits are literate people who get rid of weapons after use? They will carry out a ballistic examination, find a trunk in the bushes, not the fact that they will find a bandyugan, but he has already done it with your weapons.
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 25 July 2013 20: 27 New
                +1
                Quote: rereture
                literate people after application


                "Literate" as gopniks usually do not "work" and do not use firearms.
            2. RA77
              RA77 24 July 2013 22: 48 New
              +3
              Tell me well.
              Those. they do not take the barrel in your opinion?
              In a recent attack on collectors of Ukrposhta, one of the two attackers used the trauma of the taxi driver they had previously killed. Yes, there are a lot of such cases, in fact. You yourself know.
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 25 July 2013 10: 42 New
                +1
                Quote: RA77
                In a recent attack on collectors of Ukrposhta, one of the two attackers used injury the taxi driver they had previously killed.

                Well, at least read the comments on this article if everything else on the topic is laziness or complicated. How many more times should I write that the shot from the injury is ANONYMOUS (it IS IMPOSSIBLE to identify) until it starts to reach?
                1. RA77
                  RA77 25 July 2013 12: 46 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  Well, at least read the comments on this article if everything else on the topic is laziness or complicated. How many more times should I write that the shot from the injury is ANONYMOUS (it IS IMPOSSIBLE to identify) until it starts to reach?

                  What are you talking about, yo-mayo? Yes, if the taxi driver had a gun barrel, then they would have happily taken him away!
                  1. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 25 July 2013 21: 52 New
                    0
                    Quote: RA77
                    they would have happily taken him away!
                    With you to the next world? lol
                    1. RA77
                      RA77 25 July 2013 23: 59 New
                      0
                      Quote: Misantrop
                      With you to the next world?

                      Well, you see, you are simply unfamiliar with the situation. A search on the Internet I see that laziness.
                      Two called a taxi. On the way, in a suitable place, they attacked and killed the driver. The deceased was injured, but he had no chance to use it. Then the attackers took the driver’s injury and moved to the main crime in his car.
                      As you can see from the situation, what you wrote above about the anonymity of the injury does not matter. They drive the car of the murdered, which means they are related to his murder and do not hide it. If the deceased had not a trauma, but a war barrel, he would, unfortunately, just not be able to use it. And they would have taken him (the trunk) in the same way. And for them it would be great luck. The situation with collectors would probably be different.
                      1. Misantrop
                        Misantrop 26 July 2013 10: 15 New
                        0
                        Quote: RA77
                        Well, you see, you are simply unfamiliar with the situation. A search on the Internet I see that laziness.
                        Two called a taxi. On the way, in a suitable place, they attacked and killed the driver. The deceased was injured, but he had no chance to use it.

                        In fact, there’s nothing to help you with a trauma. A combat short-barre at point-blank sewing any passenger car right through. Through the seats - including. So with him the chance to fight back was very real. And theft of cars with the murder of the driver is now SO MUCH ... that there simply isn’t enough space on the computer if you try to download ALL cases. In Feodosia a few years ago there was a stable organized crime group, which hunted with this. Consisting of ... rotten grandfather for 80 years and two boys 15 and 12 years old (at the time of capture). They asked for a ride and crushed the driver with a guitar string. Moreover, it was the younger boy who was killing. They burned by accident, but then - plug. The grandfather, it seems, died during the investigation, and the boys are not under jurisdiction by age ... Another hole in the legislation ... request

                        A friend at one time in a similar situation managed to fight back. Only there was the opposite. He asked for a lift, and in the salon he was nicely offered to turn out his pockets if he wants to live. Just the robbers did not expect that in the very first pocket of the F-1 it would happen ... He pulled out, pulled out the ring and offered a "counter option" - the car - to the side of the road, everything from the pockets - to the seats, and they themselves - nafig (until the hand was numb ). Listened ... lol
            3. p-159
              p-159 25 July 2013 00: 01 New
              0
              according to the law, every case of unlawful use of weapons must be noted, if the barrel is squeezed out immediately go to surrender then they just drag it in and not land. an example of law enforcement lost expelled but not imprisoned
  • And raid
    And raid 24 July 2013 20: 39 New
    +4
    The authorities are simply afraid of strong people and afraid of losing the monopoly on power. The Russians are fighting the state like slop cats, you can’t even express your opinion, just be quiet and work, or thump quietly. Tolley is the case in the Caucasus, everyone has a weapon, you won’t open your mouth to them, so Moscow is licking their heels so that there will be no new war. And the State just needs to work, and give the Russians the opportunity to protect themselves and their home!
    1. tilovaykrisa
      tilovaykrisa 24 July 2013 20: 41 New
      +1
      In Tsarist Russia, weapons were sold freely and cost about 5-10 rubles, and what prevented them from expressing their opinions and setting up a revolution?
  • family tree
    family tree 24 July 2013 20: 51 New
    +2
    In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 37 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, defense is lawful in any case if the assault was associated with violence dangerous to the life of the defender or another person, or with an immediate threat of such violence.

    The presence of such an attack may be indicated, in particular:

    causing harm to health, creating a real threat to the life of the defender or another person (for example, injuring vital organs);
    the use of an encroachment method that poses a real threat to the life of the defender or another person (the use of weapons or objects used as weapons, asphyxiation, arson, etc.).

    The immediate threat of violence that is dangerous to the life of the defender or another person can be expressed, in particular, in statements about the intention to immediately cause the defender or other person death or bodily harm, life-threatening, demonstration by the attacker of weapons or objects used as weapons, explosive devices, if, taking into account the specific situation, there was reason to fear the implementation of this threat [

    Out. Until you got hurt in vital organs- excess of necessary defense.
    While you not shot, strangled, cut, set on fire- excess of necessary self-defense. And if, taking into account the specific situation, there was reason to be afraid, prepare the money for the lawyer, because it will be decided by the judge, although sometimes there will not be enough money, if the bastard has failed. So that you can safely allow the short-barrel, at least storage, at least wearing, little will change from this, except that the number of victims from careless handling. But they will not allow it, the cost of the funeral of the victim is less than the cost of treatment and detention for exceeding the necessary self-defense.
    1. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 25 July 2013 00: 11 New
      +1
      Quote: perepilka
      Out. Until you were wounded in vital organs, the excess of necessary defense. Until you were shot, strangled, cut, set on fire, the excess of necessary self-defense.

      That is, this is "The immediate threat of the use of violence dangerous to the life of a defender or another person may be expressed, in particular, in statements about the intention to immediately inflict death or injury to the defender or another person, dangerous to life, demonstration of weapons by the attackers or items used as weapons "- Do you prefer not to notice?
      Are you not a federal judge for an hour? They interpret these provisions in the same way, spitting from a high hill on the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of September 27, 2012 N 19
      1. family tree
        family tree 25 July 2013 00: 50 New
        +1
        Quote: Rakti-Kali
        The immediate threat of violence that is dangerous to the life of the defender or another person can be expressed, in particular, in statements about the intention to immediately cause the defender or other person death or bodily harm, life threatening, demonstration by the attacker of weapons or objects used as weapons
        explosive devices if in view of the specific situation, there was reason to fear the threat[
        "- Do you prefer not to notice?
        Do you prefer not to notice?
        And if the in view of the specific situation, there was reason to fear, prepare money for a lawyer, for the judge will decide, although sometimes it’s not enough money, if the wrong bastard failed.
        Or just didn’t read it?
        Are you not a federal judge for an hour? Those, it seems, also did not read, for the most part, the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of September 27, 2012 N 19. Although they read and are guided, the degree of threat at the trial, unlike the defense case itself, does not determine one who defended.
        1. family tree
          family tree 25 July 2013 16: 02 New
          +1
          Passed, apparently really a federal judge laughing
        2. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 25 July 2013 19: 12 New
          0
          Quote: perepilka
          Do you prefer not to notice?

          "Given the specific situation, there were reasons to fear the implementation of this threat": - you noted.
          And what is illogical here? If someone shouts: - "Well, that's it, you can't live!" runs away from you - it will be completely illegal to shoot at him. And if you shoot this, it would be simply stupid to refer to the immediate threat of violence. If this someone, with the same cry, pulled out a knife and made a movement towards you, then this is it - the Immediate threat of the use of violence, dangerous to the life of the defender.
          Quote: perepilka
          for the judge will decide

          That is why I am writing about the problem of law enforcement practice. Judges do behave in such cases, often uhhhh ... inadequate. Actually, as a consequence.
          Quote: perepilka
          Passed, apparently really a federal judge

          Eh ... Your words, but to God’s ears ... Not a judge. And did not minus.
          1. family tree
            family tree 25 July 2013 22: 22 New
            +1
            Quote: Rakti-Kali
            Eh ... Your words, but to God’s ears ... Not a judge. And did not minus.

            Well, then I apologize.
            That is why I am writing about the problem of law enforcement practice. Judges do behave in such cases, often uhhhh ... inadequate. Actually, as a consequence.

            Damn, what am I talking about?
            And if, taking into account the specific situation, there was reason to be afraid, prepare money for the lawyer, for the judge will decide, although sometimes it’s not enough money, if the wrong bastard failed.
            belay
  • rereture
    rereture 24 July 2013 20: 58 New
    0
    First, you need to generally review the law on self-defense, introduce a doctrine - my home is my castle. And there is no short-barrel, for smoothing the house, a smooth-bore is more effective, but on the street at least something else is useless crap (well, maybe scare the gopov) and not the fact that you will not be driven in and taken away by a pipe from the back of your head.
    1. sub307
      sub307 24 July 2013 21: 17 New
      -1
      I agree, the LAW must first be "sharpened" by the defender. In the meantime, the current government will never allow citizens to own short-barreled self-defense firearms. And neither Senator Alexander Torshin, nor the Liberal Democrat Roman Khudyakov, nor the Right to Arms movement led by the beautiful Valkyrie Maria Butina, nor even the terrible and terrible "arms lobby" are unlikely to change anything in the foreseeable future.
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 24 July 2013 22: 19 New
      0
      Quote: rereture
      Smooth barrel is more effective at home protection
      More effective - machine gun nest at the entrance laughing Have you tried to turn around with a gun in a modern corridor? lol
      1. rereture
        rereture 24 July 2013 22: 22 New
        -2
        Tried)) for example with this)
        1. AlNikolaich
          AlNikolaich 24 July 2013 23: 47 New
          +3
          Quote: rereture
          Tried)) for example with this)

          And How? Turned around? Izh 101 does not shoot with a folded stock! Yuzal on my own experience, apparently unlike you ... It's better not to have anything than to have such a "paddle". Its ancestor MC-20-01 is much better!
        2. dmitreach
          dmitreach 25 July 2013 01: 23 New
          +2
          store when shooting did not fall out? How much time did you take peeling?
          1. AlNikolaich
            AlNikolaich 25 July 2013 02: 37 New
            +4
            The store didn’t fall out, although it stood crookedly (the store latches and hooks in the back did not fit into the slots of the bolt frame). I thought to buy the 20-01 MC, but there were no worthy samples, one trash.
            There is IL-27 at the wife. She and him and the children now live in the country. I am calm for them. Cartridges with null and snipe. She shoots better than me. That's it ...
            1. dmitreach
              dmitreach 25 July 2013 09: 39 New
              0
              You have the right wife.
  • Letterksi
    Letterksi 24 July 2013 21: 27 New
    -2
    How tired of this nonsense for the legalization of weapons. Who writes, he probably has a percentage of the sale of each trunk.

    Anyone who is for legalization wants to become God by means of a pistol or a machine gun, and believes that this dangerous "toy" will save him at the right moment - will not save him. In our society, this will entail an even faster extinction of our tormented population, which are again trying to "intoxicate" with this legalization. Buy a pistol, enrich another mafia oligarch from the government - stupid or accidental death of someone else is indifferent to him, but the profit from the sale is very tangible

    The article is an impudent PR legalization, which shows only the positive aspects. But mischievously omits the negative. Permission to carry a legal trunk cannot be relieved of responsibility for exceeding self-defense. In other words, half of the country will go to the cemetery, and the other will sit in places not so distant, for national taxes! Only this will result in legalization. Weapons are legalized, but the right to fire is not legalized. (By the way, in the USA the shot is also legalized)

    The fight against crime should not begin with the legalization of trunks, but with the abolition of the article of the Criminal Code on the excess of self-defense. Believe me, not only the barrel, but the teapot can be a stern weapon against attackers.

    The vast majority of criminals in an attack use two factors: quantitative superiority and the factor of surprise. But if a person in such a situation was able to kill or cripple one of the attackers, the courts still never take these two factors into account, but begin to talk about exceeding self-defense. In short, the defender will always feel vulnerable either by criminals or by the law. This is the most pernicious sensation. Here it is necessary to fight with him in the first place. How? - cancel this scoop article on the excess of self-defense

    don't believe Listen to Andrey Kochergin

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tl9vTCn_hM
  • Anti
    Anti 24 July 2013 21: 33 New
    +1
    Give revolvers to everyone adequate !! am

    1. AlNikolaich
      AlNikolaich 25 July 2013 00: 01 New
      +7
      Quote: Anti
      Give revolvers to everyone adequate !!

      After this story, there are thoughts about whether it’s worth putting such frostbitten players in the bast in the zone, feeding at our expense, seven years, so that they come out again and play the bast with someone else’s children, wives, parents ...
      It’s better to bang them at the time of the crime and that’s it! Natural selection! Thug must die!
      1. Anti
        Anti 25 July 2013 00: 13 New
        +3
        Quote: AlNikolaich
        Natural selection! Thug must die!


        Who is against it? Only you need to remove the limits of the necessary defense in general, then sit behind all sorts ..
  • rereture
    rereture 24 July 2013 21: 40 New
    -1
    And why didn’t anyone think that the illegal arms market would expand? How many weapons are stolen? And how much will be in the illegal sale of stolen trunks?
    1. family tree
      family tree 24 July 2013 21: 55 New
      +4
      Quote: rereture
      And why didn’t anyone think that the illegal arms market would expand? How many weapons are stolen? And how much will be in the illegal sale of stolen trunks?

      About the same as now. Maybe a little less, someone would prefer legal.
    2. Setrac
      Setrac 24 July 2013 22: 00 New
      +2
      Quote: rereture
      And why didn’t anyone think that the illegal arms market would expand?

      Read something on economics, they teach the same thing at school. Market - solvent demand - does not change.
    3. Misantrop
      Misantrop 24 July 2013 22: 22 New
      +2
      Quote: rereture
      will the illegal arms market expand?
      It will happen exactly the opposite. Due to the part of the population that is now buying it forcibly, not being able to buy legally
      1. rereture
        rereture 24 July 2013 22: 39 New
        -2
        Illegally just buys that part of the population which is legally refused to buy. The number of firearms thefts will increase, it will just pop up as illegal. Look now, there are a lot of illegal hunting rifles and hunting carbines, then there are artisanal alterations of trauma and homemade goods, and at the very end there are WWII weapons from military depots. Why are there many hunting weapons in illegal sale? Because it’s easier to steal than to grind, remake or restore. We introduce a short-barrel, thefts as happened and will happen, and on the illegal market high-quality weapons of hidden carrying pop up, that is, this stolen short-barrel. And criminal elements do not need it for long-term possession, except for a couple of shots. Then they get rid of the weapon.
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 24 July 2013 22: 48 New
          +1
          Quote: rereture
          We introduce a short-barrel, the thefts as happened and will happen, and on the illegal market high-quality weapons of hidden wearing pop up, that is, this stolen short-barrel.
          From which the buyer will shy away, like a horse from a steam locomotive. Since it is CLEARED, its data is in the database of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Smoothbore, like WWII weapons (and storage weapons most often - too) is not dangerous, which makes it easy to sell.
          Think about why the criminals are trying to drop the barrel after a serious matter? Prefer to spend money, but buy another. Out of snobbery? Or because they don’t want to hang on themselves everything that is already NUMBERED on this trunk? A couple of years ago, within the boundaries of Simferopol, they began to clean the channel of Salgir. The result shocked everyone who was involved with this. HUNDREDS of trunks, although it’s difficult even for a drunk to drown. Do you think this surplus drowned? Or substandard that people refused to buy? lol
          1. rereture
            rereture 24 July 2013 22: 55 New
            -2
            Quote: Misantrop
            Since it is CLEARED, its data is in the database of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.


            And how will help in identifying the offender, then that the trunk is wanted? What prevents to throw the illuminated trunk into Salgir after a couple of shots?
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 25 July 2013 10: 49 New
              0
              Quote: rereture
              What prevents to throw the illuminated trunk into Salgir after a couple of shots?
              And if you didn't manage to throw it off, was it just far from the embankment and took it? Sit down for ALL cases that hang on this trunk? After all, they will attach them during the investigation to close a bunch of "hangings" ...
          2. Rakti-kali
            Rakti-kali 25 July 2013 01: 12 New
            +2
            Quote: Misantrop
            From which the buyer will shy away, like a horse from a steam locomotive. Since it is CLEARED, its data is in the database of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

            Imanno! But opponents of the Constitutional Court constantly "forget" about this. In addition, there are several million legal barrels in the hands of the population of the Russian Federation, and for some reason the civil war and the use of these barrels even in serious crimes with the use of firearms is zero point, crap a hundredth.
            But for the opponents of the COP, this is not an argument ... they have the same point of view "ours will shoot each other" ... also for me ... it was not a dream, mlyn ...
  • SlavaS
    SlavaS 24 July 2013 21: 47 New
    -1
    I think if weapons were allowed, then many of my friends would be killed now, and some would be serving time for murders.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 24 July 2013 22: 23 New
      +1
      Quote: SlavaS
      many of my friends would be killed now, and some would be serving sentences for murders.
      Can you imagine how many more survivors would be around now if kitchen knives were forbidden and products were cut right in the store (specially trained and authorized people) laughing
    2. RA77
      RA77 24 July 2013 22: 27 New
      -1
      +. Similarly. Or what they would become disabled.
  • rereture
    rereture 24 July 2013 23: 28 New
    +2
    For example, this can be seen in America, well, the guy turned out to be not a timid dozen.
    1. Yarbay
      Yarbay 24 July 2013 23: 49 New
      0
      Quote: rereture
      For example, this can be seen in America, well, the guy turned out to be not a timid dozen.

      And most importantly, O wonderful guy without a machine gun walks down the street and protects himself))))))))))))))
    2. dmitreach
      dmitreach 25 July 2013 01: 26 New
      +2

      why they don’t talk about such moments ....?
      1. Rakti-kali
        Rakti-kali 25 July 2013 12: 33 New
        0
        Quote: dmitreach
        why they don’t talk about such moments ....?

        Because opponents of the Constitutional Court do not even want to think that a person has the RIGHT to defend himself. Maybe they are used to being victims, or they see only victims in those around them and are afraid of losing the status quo ...
        At the end of the video, the correct words are: - “When seconds count down, the police are just minutes [from you]. Protect yourself, don't become another victim.
      2. dmitreach
        dmitreach 26 July 2013 20: 41 New
        0
        interesting article
        http://hyperprapor.blogspot.ru/2012/04/blog-post_9774.html
        Lulu Campbell, 57-year-old grandmother and owner of the Shell service station (As I understand it, this is such a roadside hybrid of gas station and technical station) left the place of work and was subjected to armed raid with the purpose of robbery ... well, God knows what else.
        At 1.30 she brought the 15-year-old grandson home to her daughter, and having waited until he came in - she was going to call him - to make sure that he closed the doors and generally indulge in a little of her own paranoia.
        However, the purse was in the back seat, as was the phone in it. Lulu went out and opened the back door in order to delve into her junk, but something in the world around her seemed suspicious, so that following the opinion of her inner voice, she returned to the driver's seat and locked the doors. During. Then a couple of armed defendants, 32+ years old, got out.
        One of them shouted immediately:
        - Salvage drive nah! Open the door, !
        Madame Campbell correctly assessed that the attempt to rob her would not end well, so she answered from her .38 caliber revolver. However, the bullet of the attacker whistled dangerously close to her chest. But she hit, but he didn’t.
        Then the second one intervened in the matter - the results of his intervention are perfectly visible in the photo. But the aunt was not a miss and a moment before she lay on the floor.
        Then she stuck her hand out on top and gave another five shots. In milk. More precisely - they went far above the goal, but that was enough to give the same fray.
        She did not take risks and try to get home, and preferred to go away nevertheless. On the way, she dialed 911, where she was redirected to the nearest fire station. Where a couple of officers met her just in case.
        After the police provided her with a photo of the intruders, she identified them as two customers of their stores.
        Aunt herself turned out to be amazingly lively, and explained that she owned 13 shops in different areas, and each of them had at least one trunk, except that she was always with her. At the same time, the growth of the lady herself is a little more than 1.5m. (This is to the fact that I would very much like to hear the opinion of the hoplophobes AS she would be asked to cope even with unarmed opponents in such physical conditions). At the same time, 35 years ago, she was already chasing her husband and his mistress almost shooting both of them.
        Z.Y. No charges were brought against her.

  • Navuxonastupil
    Navuxonastupil 25 July 2013 00: 48 New
    -4
    Previously, there was NO WEAPON in the private hands. Then there appeared useless gas scarecrowers ... Now there is a traumatism, the benefit of which is only one, clear evidence of the immaturity of our society for the possession of weapons! And do not forget, Russia is not limited to the Moscow Ring Road! They will allow the acquisition of a short barrel and at animal weddings in the same Moscow they will shoot all Mamedy and Sulejmani from a LEGALLY bought firearm!
    1. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 25 July 2013 12: 19 New
      0
      Quote: Navuxonastupil
      all Mamedy and Sulejmani will shoot from the LEGALLY bought firearm!

      And then lose the right to own weapons, if no one is hurt.
    2. sub307
      sub307 25 July 2013 12: 30 New
      0
      Just "before" weapons were in private hands. Until the 70s, I don’t remember exactly, hunting weapons were on sale.
  • studentmati
    studentmati 25 July 2013 01: 15 New
    0
    Citizen's law-abidingness is a latent concept in itself, that is, hidden and indefinite. Even the gun hanging on the wall in the last act shoots.
    Defending himself, his family, his property, a person, as an emotional being (a rare person has a stable psyche), is not able to distinguish between the forced self-defense and exceeding the limits of this self-defense.
  • DuraLexSedLex.
    DuraLexSedLex. 25 July 2013 02: 31 New
    0
    I don’t agree to enter the short-barrels. THERE IS NO LEGAL FRAMEWORK, you make fun of him and sit down, and you were right or not, this is already a court / prosecutor / society (((
    1. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 25 July 2013 12: 37 New
      0
      Quote: DuraLexSedLex.
      I do not agree to enter the short-barrels. NO LEGAL FRAMEWORK

      THERE IS! There is a legal framework, I am repeating this for the eighth time, and I have provided links above. Law enforcement problem.
  • vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 25 July 2013 04: 44 New
    0
    There are three but which determine the failure of this idea. The first state of society, as already mentioned, and more than once mental disorders take on a massive scale, a huge number of the urban population are subjected to stress. Psychiatrists no longer even fix these conditions as a disease. Our second culture has fallen to a terribly low level, insults are pouring in everywhere everywhere there is no guarantee that in any of the verbal skirmishes someone will not have a desire to use weapons, but it turns out that the first one is alive. And the third bought a gun, you need to constantly train, you need to be able to use weapons. At today's prices for it, acquiring weapons and training is not a cheap pleasure, so not every family can afford such a purchase. So, summing up all of the above, who will walk with weapons? So those who still have it, plus a very small amount in additives. In this case, we will all be just hostages, owners of weapons with shattered nerves. Who is for, vote.
    1. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 25 July 2013 12: 44 New
      0
      Quote: vladsolo56
      The first state of society, as already mentioned, and more than once mental disorders take on a massive scale, a huge number of the urban population are subjected to stress. Psychiatrists no longer even fix these conditions as a disease.

      In the United States, Germany, France, living is not easier and stress is also enough.
      Quote: vladsolo56
      Our second culture has fallen to a terribly low level, insults flow like water everywhere there is no guarantee that in any of the verbal skirmishes someone will not have a desire to use weapons, but then it turns out that the first one is alive

      Firstly, the ability to get armed rebuff significantly reduces the desire to behave aggressively, and secondly, the opportunity to get a bullet from a bystander at the time of an attempt to implement the principle of "who is the first and alive", reduces aggression even more.
      Quote: vladsolo56
      And the third bought a gun, you need to constantly train, you need to be able to use weapons. At today's prices for it, acquiring weapons and training is not a cheap pleasure, so not every family can afford such a purchase.

      This is the problem of restricting access and lack of market. Remember when VCRs were forbidden - they cost like a car, and the cost of a high-quality cassette was half the salary of an engineer. Now how much video media cost? A cup of coffee in the eatery is more expensive.
    2. RA77
      RA77 25 July 2013 12: 50 New
      -1
      Quote: vladsolo56
      There are three but which determine the failure of this idea. The first state of society, as already mentioned, and more than once mental disorders take on a massive scale, a huge number of the urban population are subjected to stress. Psychiatrists no longer even fix these conditions as a disease. Our second culture has fallen to a terribly low level, insults are pouring in everywhere everywhere there is no guarantee that in any of the verbal skirmishes someone will not have a desire to use weapons, but it turns out that the first one is alive. And the third bought a gun, you need to constantly train, you need to be able to use weapons. At today's prices for it, acquiring weapons and training is not a cheap pleasure, so not every family can afford such a purchase. So, summing up all of the above, who will walk with weapons? So those who still have it, plus a very small amount in additives. In this case, we will all be just hostages, owners of weapons with shattered nerves. Who is for, vote.

      All right. +
  • Byordovvv1
    Byordovvv1 25 July 2013 06: 40 New
    +1
    With total corruption in the country, any citizen can turn from a repeat offender - a criminal in one moment into an assistant to a deputy with a Doctor of Science certificate with the right to carry a machine gun, drive armored vehicles and any aircraft.
    1. studentmati
      studentmati 25 July 2013 06: 46 New
      0
      I agree, if they lead him .....
      Otherwise, complete degradation with landing ....
  • Sergey Medvedev
    Sergey Medvedev 25 July 2013 07: 50 New
    +2
    Article plus. A few months ago, two guest workers robbed my retired neighbor. So I'm for the permission of the short barrel. I’ll buy it myself as soon as it’s allowed. soldier
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • DmitryDmitry
    DmitryDmitry 25 July 2013 07: 58 New
    -2
    Well, you can’t compare us with America !!! Have you ever seen how help in the PND for a smoothbore or injury give? Doctor: -Why do you need a weapon? A friend from the CIS: -arbuzyah harboring Doctor: -Well, if watermelons then okay !!! And who is he, what is he, the doctor is not interested ... the main thing is 100 rubles per barrel. And think about what will happen with the lifting of the ban ?! The whole gopota of the yard will be armed with the first thing, it’s not democratic that they will be denied the right to arms only because he is in sports pants with shoes and a mug like Pithecanthropus !!!! Yes, comrades from the south with their cult of weapons, they will all be with a real and not a traumatic gun! How many trunks will bandos take away from those who could not use it on them? Don't you have any acquaintances who, having taken on their chests, begin to play with weapons (smooth-bore or injury) and arrange post-shootings and stuff ??!
  • sigizmund472
    sigizmund472 25 July 2013 08: 54 New
    -1
    And how and who will determine whether a citizen is law-abiding or not? Indeed, the lack of drives to the police does not mean that someone suddenly does not want to show that he can do anything.
  • ratuld
    ratuld 25 July 2013 10: 18 New
    -2
    Weapons are needed.
    The right to short-range weapons must be legitimized constitutionally.
    The faster the better.
    Procrastination - the collapse of the state.
    Even discussing the stupid things that are written on the forum is dumb.
  • ilya63
    ilya63 25 July 2013 10: 45 New
    0
    dear, I want to draw attention to the fact that a weapon does not kill in itself, and whether or not to have a barrel is a matter of people's psychology (if you are physically and psychologically prepared, and most importantly morally ready to hit, the barrel in the hands of the enemy does not have any decisive significance) all the more so if a person pulled out a barrel he must shoot, and if his opponent has the same level and can be higher, then the individual will think 100 times (psychology - if only not for me, they would not kill me, if only not for me, etc. .) - what to say, how to say it and God forbid to attack with weapons, and all the squeals about the free sale of weapons will remain squeals, since the existing model of society cannot allow that an insult to the honor of the Russian citizen can get an olive between the eyes (such a government), not to mention the massive, open protests against the existing order, everyone is used to seeing in the people (which can be deceived, cut off with the help of taxes and fines, etc.) called the elector t
    the question of weapons is probably how with the police who can solve their problems on their own, who cannot run to the police for help (where he will affectionately call him patient and will not do anything at best, or you’ll end up with the trunk) also does not help, and in different cases the weapon may be not only a gun, it can be money, communications, any household items, etc., the gun is not a threat to the authorities, but rather to a thief of various stripes and officials who are not clean at hand and other g..dons, and most importantly, you must always first of all see a person not only in himself, but also in others
  • Norady
    Norady 25 July 2013 11: 01 New
    +1
    I must say right away, I have a passion for weapons, and I WANT to have a personal short-barrel ...
    BUT by studying the issue, categorically against having such an opportunity!

    In general, I agree with more competent comrades who have already expressed themselves in sufficient detail and intelligibly on this issue:
    http://hardingush.livejournal.com/24215.html
  • LION
    LION 25 July 2013 11: 31 New
    +1
    Popcorn crunch from all monitors.
  • operator35
    operator35 25 July 2013 12: 01 New
    +2
    Good day to all. The topic is painful for me as well as for many of my friends, so I decided to talk ... I am a shooting instructor from the service and an IPSC instructor for 4 years. Almost all friends are active or in reserve. we train 2-3 times a week at the shooting range or go to the shooting range. shot a pistol and a 400-carbine a week 500-300. the service had to be "applied". I write all this for something I have an injury on my belt and 4 shops always, except for sleep)))) all my "colleagues" are the same "cowards" as I am. and there are many guys over 90 kg of "working meat", this is an explanation to those who, at the beginning of the discussion, wrote that a real man can cope without a weapon ... that's what I want to explain:
    1-if you think that it is very easy to get the "blaster" out of the holster and shoot at a person, you are deeply mistaken. even if you are in danger, it’s not so simple on a moral basis. (according to statistics, in the first battle, only 15% of recruits shoot at the enemy, the rest deliberately miss).
    2-agree about the law on self-defense. only it should be written not by politicians, whose thick asses are messing around with foreign cars and guarded by valiant FSO guys, but by competent lawyers with the involvement of special forces. and I ask YOU, with ranks up to the colonel, starting from the colonel, even if they are 38-40, they start insanity.
    3 - for especially happy and "harmless" citizens - when I go to the subway and the suicide bomber will shout a "battle cry" - I will have a chance, if I have a combat barrel, to plant 2-3 bullets in her head before she presses - and thus save yourself first of all, your beloved, and those who were lucky enough to ride with me in the same carriage)))) with "rubber" you can certainly try, but there is NO chance.
    4 - back to my colleagues - they are from "A", "B", GRU, SOBR - serious offices - and so at home the guys have exactly one smooth and a couple of rifled ones. for what???? to protect the family, because except for "brothers in arms" no one will help - stupid and fearless cops flying in illusions and considering themselves "Batmen" will come on call and get them right away, without having to get out of the car. and it turns out that you will have to hold on until the villains with weapons overwhelm a couple of carriages, and until finally the "heavy" ones arrive.
    a couple of times a panic button was triggered in our shooting range, and the police officers who came on call didn't even wear armor, he walks in in a shirt and a radio station and I ask: "Starley, aren't you afraid to come to the shooting gallery and enter the alarm like this?" ? " in response to the surprised eyes of the employee.

    combat short-barrel is necessary, but only subject to strict issuance of permits and licenses. when taking into account an existing license, lack of jambs, etc. mandatory courses, constant testing of knowledge and skills — that is, to put it all in such a framework that a person who knows how and wants to do it — for him it will not be a problem to buy and wear and, if necessary, use it. the rest will say, nafig this gimp with military weapons, then they don’t need and they won’t get, their police and the state will protect, as well as devices from dogs)))))
    WITH RESPECT hi
    1. Yarbay
      Yarbay 25 July 2013 13: 58 New
      -1
      Quote: operator35
      The topic is painful for me as for many of my friends, so I decided to talk ... I’m a shooting instructor from the service and for 4 years an IPSC instructor

      Mlyn one more * professional * !!!
      Enough to play here in public!
      They will shoot at * shahidok * will)))
      The fact that officers have weapons is not news!
      I am an officer in reserve and for many years had the right to both storage and carrying weapons!
      Almost never worn !!
      I saw a lot of experienced officers who made big mistakes because of the weapons they wore !!
      So do not be silly !!
      The population should not be allowed to carry weapons !!
      You don’t protect your family!
      The impudent bandit will run into yesterday's nerd so much that he will bind his family !!
      Mlyn heroes arrows !!
      Every jerk will write podёbki to me !!
  • Navuxonastupil
    Navuxonastupil 25 July 2013 13: 14 New
    0
    Previously, there was NO WEAPON in the private hands. Then there appeared useless gas scarecrowers ... Now there is a traumatism, the benefit of which is only one, clear evidence of the immaturity of our society for the possession of weapons! And do not forget, Russia is not limited to the Moscow Ring Road! They will allow the acquisition of a short barrel and at animal weddings in the same Moscow they will shoot all Mamedy and Sulejmani from a LEGALLY bought firearm!
  • Alexey M
    Alexey M 25 July 2013 17: 37 New
    +1
    Problem: There is a glamorous young lady, a gopnik pulls out her purse and runs away. The young lady takes out a gun and puts the whole clip in the gopnik, on the street with passers-by and houses. Question how many times she gets into and to whom?
    1. onegin61
      onegin61 25 July 2013 18: 25 New
      -1
      this fool will not pass the tests and practice and will not get a license only if he buys it, but this is another question and the cops who issued it, too, will go along with them in the bullpen
      1. builder74
        builder74 25 July 2013 21: 01 New
        0
        You understand that such fools will be! Those who they fall into (God forbid) will already care who goes to the bullpen, who took what, etc.
    2. operator35
      operator35 25 July 2013 23: 09 New
      0
      Quote: Alexey M
      Problem: There is a glamorous young lady, a gopnik pulls out her purse and runs away. The young lady takes out a gun and puts the whole clip in the gopnik, on the street with passers-by and houses. Question how many times she gets into and to whom?

      only this is the catch, the respected Alexei-pistol of this young lady will be in her bag and therefore she will not get anything ... carrying a weapon on a constant basis is not so easy, I personally know people who tried to wear an injury on their belt, they quickly got tired of it ... and the weapon is now in the safe .... since wearing it constantly in a holster is quite problematic for a "novice" or a glamorous young lady, plus you need to pick up clothes that provide concealed wearing and, if necessary, the possibility of quick use ....
      that's why I'm talking about two categories of citizens - about those to whom it is really important, interesting and "possibly" necessary - as a rule, these are acting employees of special forces or in reserve and just say "sympathizers" - in general, people who work closely with weapons and are interested in this a question.
      the second category with positions — just to kill people or as described above — but to these comrades, again, with strict, I emphasize, the framework for obtaining permission, training, control and large articles for violation of storage, wearing and use, I just don’t want to do this -because they are not really interested in this.
  • operator35
    operator35 25 July 2013 21: 49 New
    0
    such fools are now, believe me. only with an injury.
    and there is Maria Gushchina — she is 16 years old and she is the world champion in practical shooting among women — this is an example. who are interested, look at youtube.
  • EdwardTich68
    EdwardTich68 25 July 2013 22: 48 New
    +1
    In Rio de Janeiro where there has always been a free sale of short-barreled weapons and the revolver is on our
    money of about 900 rubles per year kills more than 6000 (six thousand people) This is only one city, and 176 (one hundred and seventy-six) people in the whole of Britain. Brazil is approximately comparable to Russia in terms of average living standards and population size. at high prices, this will not be fair in relation to the bulk of the country's population. If we make the price of weapons affordable in Mexico, Argentina or Brazil (about 30-50 dollars apiece), then in the evening few will risk going out. Weapons are inevitable in large quantities again as in the 90s will be in the hands
    crime. However, I am 100% sure that there will never be a free sale, as there (he showed his passport, put his revolver in his pocket and went to the store for vodka). crying
  • Ferocious Bambra
    Ferocious Bambra 6 August 2013 12: 41 New
    0
    Legalization of weapons is needed for those who are scared to sell it