Military Review

Kill not guns, and people

100
From the beginning, just two examples from the hundreds that I have:


Example N 1. Citizen M. lived in the hatch of the urban heating system. However, in his meager possessions there were an F-1 grenade and a double-barreled shotgun of an 12 caliber. Once, walking around the city in a light drunk, M. fired into a huge mirror shop window, admired a waterfall of fragments and went to his hatch to rest, where he was successfully detained by police.

Example N 2. Citizen A. worked as a guardian of a gardening partnership, and here he lived without a residence permit. Once, on the territory entrusted to him, he found a stranger car, next to which a drunk company sat down for a picnic in the fresh air. A., as it should be, made a remark to violators and, as is customary in recent times, was sent to an address known from Russia for a long time. After that, our hero retired, but not where he was sent, but to his hut, where he had several RGD-5 grenades. Taking one of them, he returned, pulled out the check and gently blew up the car of the violators.

These simple examples are the best suited for checking on them the arguments of opponents of the right of citizens to own weapons. Recently, three State Duma deputies, including the head of the Security Committee, in one of the television programs voiced their proposals for regulating the market for firearms. Among those were: tightening the rules for issuing licenses for it, a special psychiatric examination of future buyers of weapons, periodic visits to the owners of guns by district inspectors, and the deputies themselves want the owners to occasionally retake exams on the rules of possession of firearms and traumatic weapons. The deputies spoke enthusiastically and were clearly pleased with their own proposals to make the collar of a citizen heavier, who already spent all his life in a narrow framework of prohibitions and restrictions. Why such a dislike for him? And how will these restrictive measures affect M. and A.? Which inspector will visit M. in the collector, who will send A. to the psychiatric examination. Who, finally, will deprive them of the right to have military grenades, the right that they themselves appropriated without any obstacles, and which the owners do not even think about?

It should be noted that M. and A. are not alone, they are representatives of a multi-thousand tribe of offenders who do not follow any rules and do not follow any laws! Alas, the legislators simply did not think about it. Because they simply do not know either the 1 example, the 2 example, or thousands of other examples, and in preparing for the transfer (more precisely, not in preparation), they did not bother to ask at least some texture to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

And this is not an isolated case. Such legislative initiatives are always (!!!) offered without any reliance on statistics or any serious research. I have been dealing with this issue for more than 30 years, and therefore I speak, relying not on emotional reasoning, but on real figures, materials of criminal cases, opinion polls, long-term observations.

And the numbers say the following. In Russia, all 2% of legally acquired weapons are used to commit crimes. And all these 2% offenses committed on domestic soil are usually in the heat of passion, delirium tremens, or when the limits of necessary defense are exceeded. In street robberies, not even talking about exchanges on exchangers or contract killings, you will never find legal guns or carbines. Because no normal person will cut out of an officially registered weapon on him and go with him to rob collectors. We see the same picture in the United States, where it is easier to acquire weapons than ours, and until recently there were two times less murders. There, too, with all the abundance of possibilities, less than 2% of officially registered trunks get into crime reports.

Incompetent opponents of a short-barreled woman try to prove that for defense it is enough to have an already allowed self-defense weapon, traumatic weapons, stun guns, gas pistols, aerosols ... But when studying more than 500 criminal cases in which such weapons appear, I have not a single (!!!) fact I did not find a successful self-defense. But crimes with their use are not one and not two, but dozens. Because law-abiding citizens use the means of self-defense as required by the instructions and the law. That is, it is allowed to shoot from a gas weapon no closer than from a meter distance, it is impossible to shoot from a travmatiki in the head, in the face, it is impossible to shoot at the stop ...

These instructions were compiled by the Ministry of Internal Affairs on the basis of the conclusions of the Ministry of Health, which ensures that human health, even the criminal, was not harmed. But this is not about drugs and vitamins! It turns out that the law-abiding defenders with the help of non-lethal weapons obviously cannot inflict harm on an in-attack, So, the attacker is not afraid of such weapons!

The deadliest weapons in Russia, with the help of which two thirds of murders are committed in the country: an ax (1), a kitchen knife (2), a hammer (3)


The criminals just spit on all the restrictions. They shoot just in the support and in the head. I studied the real case: the victim, defensively, shot at the attacker from the gas revolver, as expected, from a meter distance. It didn’t have a proper stopping effect on the criminal, he took away the weapon, hit the victim with the handle on the head, and then shot point-blank in the face.

As a result, a man’s nose was pierced with a jet of hot gas, a sensorineural hearing loss developed, in other words, deafness, eyes were burned, the burn turned into conjunctivitis, and so on.

Now introduced additional restrictions on traumatics and pneumatics, there are reasonable, and there are stupid. It was forbidden to shoot from pneumatics in the places that were not designated for this, but there are simply no designated places. No, of course, it’s right that it’s forbidden to shoot just in the street, because we have enough fools. And they shoot cars from pneumatics, and animals, even people. But, taking into account the bitter experience, it is better to think that the pneumatics should not be sold to anyone! Let only adult residents of the area buy, according to their passport, which is recorded in a special computer database. This, on the one hand, disciplines the owner, and on the other, it allows to outline the circle of persons to be checked in the event of a crime.

But the biggest and most harmful nonsense, which shows that all arguments about tightening are aimed solely at squeezing money out of people, this is a requirement that civilian weapons owners (especially traumatizers) pass an examination on the rules of handling it every five years. Question: what is achieved by this exam? Maybe Aslan Cherkesov, who killed four shots to the head of a fan, Sviridov did it because he had not studied the law enough? Or a scumbag who blew out an actor Zibrov’s pre-exam? And in general, whether at least one murder, rape, robbery or banditry was committed because the criminals did not know that these actions were illegal and punishable ?!

The most innocent (for criminals), and therefore self-defense means sold without permission in Russia. So far, their ban is not in question. And what will happen in the future, who knows ... So: stun gun (4), gas spray (5), aerosol device "Shock" (6)


So, on the basis of which reasons such a decision was made? What research is it based on? After all, proceeding from the AZ of such logic, it is necessary once every five years, and better each year, to take a paid exam for all citizens of the country on the knowledge of the criminal code. And not passing, to prohibit walking on the street and fined ... What is not a way to defeat crime? I give this idea to any deputy faction.

In general, there is really no problem of criminal trauma use. There are incompetence of some officials, who exaggerate the colors and force the situation to a bare place. One of the three deputies mentioned mentioned publicly stated that for one fact of legitimate use of traumatics, there are 99 criminal facts. This is, of course, complete nonsense, but the poor fellow told about police violations of the rules of carrying weapons, based ... on the series. In fact, there is no statistics on the use of trauma. Sometimes called 50 cases of its criminal use. In relation to the total number of non-lethal trunks, this is less than 0,1%, that is, it is a value that is less than the statistical error, which does not give any grounds at all to speak and draw any conclusions. For comparison: from 15 thousands of murders, about 10 thousands were committed using economic tools: kitchen knives, hammers, axes, chisels, etc. Perhaps there is much more reason for alarm, is not it? Here is the topic for another law:. I also donate to any deputy who wants to imitate a deep state approach to ensuring public safety. It is possible to issue permits for the right to buy knives and hammers for money, to arrange re-examinations ... Once in Okinawa, it was decided to have one knife in one village. He was in the central square, and an armed sentry stood near it. If someone from the peasants had to, for example, slaughter a chicken, he would go to this square and there, under the supervision of the sentry, cut it. You can, of course, follow this path, but the occupiers invented it, out of fear of the local population. It is better to accept the principle that Americans have been practicing for many decades:. And it is necessary to influence people, not weapons. Now we have the situation is exactly the opposite.

The hooligan, sticking to the wife of Andrei Zibrov, made a young man, a good actor, disabled for life. Deliberately causing grievous bodily harm from hooliganism is punished with imprisonment from three to ten years. Well, give a scoundrel - 10 or eight years! This will be a lesson for others. And he was appointed three years in a general regime colony, which means that in a year and a half he will be released on parole! Why such softness to a particular guilty? And where does such pressure on innocent people come from? After all, after such cases, the media with full force fall on civilian weapons, demanding toughening its sale, and even a complete ban! That is, essentially the principle:. It is absolutely clear that such decisions untie the hands of criminals, but they bind the law-abiding citizens hand and foot!

The most popular in Russia models of “firearm of limited defeat” are: Osseo XB-4-1ML pistol-free pistol “Osa” (7), MP-80-13T traumatic pistol (or IK 79-9T pistol), Traumatic pistols (8), and traumatic pistols. Jorge "(9) and" Jorge-3M "(10), traumatic pistol" Thunderstorm "(11), traumatic revolver" Iceberg "(12)


In the United States, opponents of fluency in weapons have a formally correct argument that a mass of stolen or simply lost legal trunks enter the black market. Usually, this is even called a figure, although no one can say exactly which document it came from. In fact, this figure is, of course, several times lower. According to official data, in 10 years, from 1993 to 2002, inclusive, 1,7 million reports about the loss or theft of weapons were received by the US police. Moreover, this number has decreased from year to year from 200 thousand in 1993 to 140 thousand in 2002. But we are not even the main thing. We have our own way, our crime is much easier to get weapons from military warehouses. In the search are tens of thousands of not even pistols, as in the United States, and machine guns, machine guns, grenade launchers! And no one wants to engage in tightening control over their storage: even the centralized registration of military weapons is missing! For service and civilian weapons, he is, but for combat - no! But the work should be carried out precisely from this end: they found a machine gun at the gangster, looked at his number, broke through what warehouse he was in, under what circumstances he disappeared, all this can be done in a few minutes. But this is just not doing. And everyone understands why ... Any society is designed in such a way that something can be stolen or lost in it, but this is not a reason to refuse from this subject at all. Cars also often steal ... Let's ban them - there will be no hijackings, no accidents, no raids ...

Another Russian peculiarity, on which the opponents of the free sale of arms especially stress. Russia is a drinking country, and drinking is strong. 18 liters of pure alcohol per capita, including children, women and the elderly. About a bottle of vodka per Russian per week. About 80% of crimes we have committed in a state of intoxication. From here, opponents of legalization make an interesting conclusion that instead of allowing weapons, it is better to fight alcoholism. And until the number of drunkards and alcoholics, we will not fall at least to the world average level, about any weapon for the population is out of the question. Formally, everything is correct here, but with one significant reservation, which immediately reduces all previous arguments to. Namely: people who drink, drug addicts, members of an organized criminal group, previously convicted and other marginal people acquire weapons without any particular problems. M. and A., who started this article, did not observe legal prohibitions, and in fact no one can restrict them. Therefore, speaking of the arming of the population, I mean law-abiding citizens, citizens with an impeccable legal reputation. But just these proposals and cause vehement objections! At the same time, I have not met a single recipe for the effective disarmament of fringe and criminals!

Incompetence rules the ball in all matters related to weapons. I deliberately do not use the newfangled term in this article, which was called traumatic — because it is wrong in essence and illiterate in content. Firstly, a traumatic weapon according to forensic standards is not considered a firearm, as it has a muzzle energy. Secondly, a firearm serves to defeat a living target, and a traumatika has another task: to disable the enemy. What changed the renaming? Now from or will not beat out an eye? Hardly. But when I wanted to buy cartridges for my own, the seller said that my license, updated a couple of months ago, is no good: it uses the old wording, and now the trauma is called in a new way ...
But in general, it’s not a weapon! In Switzerland, guns and machine guns are stored in houses, not to mention rifles. In Israel, young soldiers, boys and girls, walk around the city, including firing, with combat. And amazingly: no one shoots anyone, no one kills anyone ...

Yes, in fact, this is not surprising, if we recall that people are killed not by guns, but by other people. Only to alter bad people is much more difficult than to deprive the right to self-defense of good ones.
Author:
100 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. IsailoR
    IsailoR 20 September 2013 09: 27
    20
    These words, yes to the Duma in the ears.
    1. mejik
      mejik 20 September 2013 10: 10
      13
      Yes, how much is already negotiated, let it not be, it seems. The slave mentality of the powers that be will not allow sprouts of freedom of ownership of the Constitutional Court to grow. Indeed, in the wake of the permission for possession of the Constitutional Court by the population, a law on civil arrest, on protecting the health and life of third citizens, should appear. Not ... parasites in the Duma will not give ... Or they will think of carrying the disassembled cop, the store in one pocket, the bolt in the other, and the case in three, and the cartridges in a backpack ... No, they won’t.
      1. jasper
        jasper 21 September 2013 14: 07
        0
        slave? so the fight against the armed citizen by the Soviets began, and is still ongoing
    2. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 20 September 2013 13: 27
      +6
      Quote: IsailoR
      These words, yes to the Duma in the ears.


      Better it was not in the ears, but in another place bad. No not like this. It is necessary to launch in the Duma the defendants A. and M. together with their means of self-defense. It is desirable in drinking and with a bad mood, it is desirable that they be sent in the Duma as well ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 20 September 2013 17: 10
          +3
          Each specific deputy knows that he has "Deputy immunity". Therefore, he can get nasty, cut, because according to the law, he is not subject to jurisdiction. And if the citizens have weapons, many will want to sort it out on the spot ...
          1. Walking
            Walking 20 September 2013 17: 32
            +5
            I fully support the author of the article.
        2. cumastra1
          cumastra1 20 September 2013 17: 26
          +3
          absolutely right! just removed from the tongue. Fear of your people - the electorate! It is better to lose a hundred - another normal, honest citizens at the hands of bandits than to know that these hundred - two conscious, law-abiding, honest (this is the worst) citizens will own weapons. For a crime, just hothouse conditions are created in order to keep the rest of the people under control of this very crime. This is done all over the world, where citizens need to be tamed a bit. (USA for example)
        3. Igor39
          Igor39 20 September 2013 17: 46
          +4
          In a free country, any free, normal person has the right to acquire and store firearms. Only slaves cannot have weapons.
        4. jasper
          jasper 21 September 2013 14: 08
          0
          n-dyayaya in the union over there were generally poor all but the boyars-secretaries and not
  2. anip
    anip 20 September 2013 09: 28
    16
    And what's wrong with the article? Who minus and for what?
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 20 September 2013 13: 28
      12
      Quote: anip
      And what's wrong with the article? Who minus and for what?



      Proponents of same-sex love naturally. No one else laughing
      1. nerd.su
        nerd.su 20 September 2013 15: 42
        -4
        Quote: Geisenberg
        Proponents of same-sex love naturally. No one else

        Supporters of same-sex love just would not hurt a personal weapon. Fight off the gopota that fuck ... hits them in the dark alleys. Gopot and Natsik at the same time become quiet and cease to offend the offended. Or do not they look down? So is there any sense in free selling?
    2. Max_Bauder
      Max_Bauder 20 September 2013 14: 22
      +9
      Just the criminal disappeared =)
  3. Ulysses
    Ulysses 20 September 2013 09: 39
    24
    Only remodeling bad people is much more difficult than depriving the right to self-defense of good ones.

    You can only rephrase:
    "The conversion of bad people into good people (or their early disposal) will go much faster if good people personal use will be a firearm. " smile
    1. mejik
      mejik 20 September 2013 09: 54
      +5
      Quote: Ulysses
      You can only rephrase:

      One day, good people will come together and kill all the bad people. (C) People.
      1. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 20 September 2013 13: 30
        +6
        Quote: mejik
        Quote: Ulysses
        You can only rephrase:

        One day, good people will come together and kill all the bad people. (C) People.


        Suicide does not threaten the people, believe me.

        "Sometimes goats behave like normal people, and normal people behave like real goats" (c) Masyanya, a cartoon about OK

        PS: Citizens your censorship breaks all the records of idiocy.
  4. Per se.
    Per se. 20 September 2013 09: 53
    12 th
    "Criminals just spit on all restrictions," - that's why they are criminals, example # 1, example # 2 ... You might think that a drunken bum with this grenade will ask whether you are armed or not when he has urine in his head will hit to throw this grenade or shoot from a sawn-off shot in the back. "Yes, in fact, this is not surprising if you remember that people are killed not by guns, but by other people. Only remaking bad people is much more difficult than depriving good people of the right to self-defense," what a good trick, that's just, nobody cannot deprive a person of the right to self-defense, which is not synonymous with lynching and bandit methods. Indeed, it is not objects and weapons that are killed, but people who use them, just as they do not protect guns, but people, moral hygiene in society, law and order. Diluted homelessness, the poor, drug addiction, officials who do not fulfill their responsibilities to society, corruption to the very top, and now, let the arms lobby also earn blood on blood.
    1. redwolf_13
      redwolf_13 20 September 2013 16: 33
      12
      You know Dear, I would not want to wish you. But God forbid that you would meet with a wife in a dark alley with a group of young people warmed up with alcohol and who would like to replenish their budget a little and flirt with your spouse at your expense. Here you will remember that what a pity that there is no short trunk in your pocket. You can say that there is no need to walk at night. BUT these young people walk both in the evening and in the afternoon. But no matter how the lion was selenium, the flock of jackals would devour the lion too. The authorities are afraid of the armed people and pour into the ears of the rest that WEAPONS ARE EVIL.
      1. redwolf_13
        redwolf_13 20 September 2013 16: 36
        +2
        Ja apologize for the flag. I have to change IPY struggle with the ban on torrents fellow
        1. nerd.su
          nerd.su 20 September 2013 19: 38
          -2
          Quote: redwolf_13
          Ja apologize for the flag. I have to change IPY struggle with the ban on torrents

          I do not want to read morality to you since I myself am sinful in this regard. But what happens, you actually admit that a thief (because legally it is), and even a malicious recidivist - who uses a torrent once? - And at the same time you also want a weapon. In fact, an armed criminal laughing And if the state says - use the weapons of those who are without sin, and all users of torrents will be deprived of the opportunity to buy a short barrel, because we steal - do you think this is normal? From a legal point of view, there is only a difference between the pickpockets, fortors, and torrent users in the object and method of theft. Let’s sell weapons to all housekeepers. He climbed into your house, accidentally and does not remember how, but here you are at him with a kitchen knife. He shot you in self-defense and received a fine for illegally entering your home. Well, or Nikita Mikhalkov to rush at you with a sapper shovel for the fact that you are watching his unlicensed stronghold. And you - bang! - and shoot. It turns out that the repeat offender shot the one he robbed, and even defended. Mikhalkov is not very sorry, but what if you fill up a normal person?
          And the dark lane ... If you are an indecisive timid man, unable to fend for himself in word and deed, then the gun will also be taken from you.
      2. Petrix
        Petrix 20 September 2013 17: 07
        +2
        Quote: redwolf_13
        Here you will remember that what a pity that there is no short trunk in your pocket.

        Or you will be grateful that in the pockets of young people there are no short trunks.

        Why do people not understand that not only the good will be armed, but also the bad ones? How much easier is it to commit a crime with a short barrel than to drag a gun or look for weapons on the black market? It's just that: I stole a purse, and there is a gun; climbed into a car or into a house, found a weapon.

        I would not want to wish you, but who will be to blame if your child shoots himself something with your own gun? It is more interesting to play with him than with a gun.
        1. Walking
          Walking 20 September 2013 17: 36
          +1
          The bad ones are already armed with a knife, a pistol or even an assault rifle and without any permission.
        2. revnagan
          revnagan 20 September 2013 17: 48
          +7
          Quote: Petrix
          Why do people not understand that not only the good will be armed, but also the bad ones?

          Once again, in my mother’s language: they don’t go to the “case” with a registered barrel. It's like signing a voluntary confession or leaving a passport at the scene of a crime. And criminals have illegal ones anyway. ".
          1. nerd.su
            nerd.su 20 September 2013 20: 05
            0
            Quote: revnagan
            Once again, in my mother’s tongue: they don’t go to the "case" with a registered barrel.

            In the United States in 2012, 72 people became victims of mass shootings, 68 were injured. Over the past 30 years, 62 cases of mass executions have occurred. Mass - from 4 people and more. Most and all the most massive are from legal weapons.
            So far, one lawyer in Moscow has distinguished himself, but nothing will be allowed for the short-barrel, then we will begin to compete with the states. And to catch up and overtake America - here we have no equal! Pour yes drink, as they say ...

            Quote: revnagan
            And in a normal person, for self-defense

            But the Americans can. The result of NONE of the cases of mass executions was not averted with the help of a civilian’s weapon.
            1. revnagan
              revnagan 22 September 2013 16: 39
              +1
              Quote: bot.su
              In the United States in 2012, 72 people became victims of mass shootings, 68 were injured. Over the past 30 years, 62 cases of mass executions have occurred. Mass - from 4 people and more. Most and all the most massive are from legal weapons.

              You see, when operating with statistics, you need to provide complete information. What do I mean? For the full understanding, you should give statistics on the number of cases when law-abiding citizens armed with legal weapons were able to defend their lives, honor and dignity from criminal encroachments, protect their relatives and relatives, their property and nip offenses by the mere fact of having weapons in their own right under legitimate circumstances. Believe me, statistics will not be in favor of crimes.
              Quote: bot.su
              None of the cases of mass executions were prevented with the help of weapons available to a civilian.

              And here the trick is that criminals with weapons go to places where carrying weapons by law-abiding citizens is prohibited by law. Well, there are such weapon-free zones in the States. Schools, cinemas, universities, student townships, kindergartens, etc. Criminal GAGANTED goes there. And he feels like a wolf in the sheepfold. Do you really think that the Marine who died at the premiere of the film "Batman" would not have killed the maniac if he had a legal weapon with him? But "niiizzyayaya!" perished. So no la-la and other demagoguery.
          2. Petrix
            Petrix 4 October 2013 10: 18
            0
            Quote: revnagan
            they do not go to the "case" with a registered barrel.

            Go to business with a stolen barrel. How many allegations of missing weapons will go to the authorities? Do you think there will be none?
      3. Per se.
        Per se. 20 September 2013 21: 02
        0
        Quote: redwolf_13
        Here you will remember that what a pity that there is no short trunk in your pocket
        Do you know, dear, where did you get the idea that these "hot" youngsters will not have the same short barrel, or that they will not attack from the back, hitting with a sharpener or a piece of reinforcement? How popular these plots are for Batman and Superman! ... If having a weapon would solve all problems! Alas, they attack collectors who are trained with machine guns and bulletproof vests, but do you think that a pistol will protect you in case of a deliberate attack? You yourself shot at people, have you ever killed? Have you been shot at, your friends? Everything is beautiful in the cinema, but in life, one accidental shot, and you are a corpse or an invalid. This, here, God forbid you, so that some kurkul does not shoot your child in his private garden for a couple of cucumbers, or a glamorous chicken, out of fright, does not shoot your friend, who went to take out the garbage in the evening. "The authorities are afraid of the armed people", are you going to take the Winter take or storm the Kremlin? The authorities must ensure order and protect their people. For this, the army and the police have been created, which are entitled to weapons by law, we pay taxes for this, having the right to a peaceful life. There is a law "On weapons", there are enough opportunities for a normal peasant, for whom this is not enough, no gun will save him.
  5. Sadikoff
    Sadikoff 20 September 2013 09: 53
    0
    Here 3D printers will go to the people and a person will print a gun or a rifle for himself. Everything you need on the Internet.
    1. revnagan
      revnagan 20 September 2013 11: 20
      +4
      Quote: Sadykoff
      Here 3D printers will go to the people and a person will print a gun or a rifle for himself. Everything you need on the Internet.

      Yeah, and will print patrons ... But this is so, by the way. All our trouble is that the seats of deputies in the "Duma", "Rada" and other "councils" are taken by "correct boys", "specific boys", or simply "good people", and not professionals, as the author correctly noted. But there is no such profession, a good boy. And these "boys", by the way, who themselves, by the way, have more than one barrel on their hands to tremble, to the point of insanity, are afraid that simple "suckers", too, legally, can be in the pocket at least PM. And that their exclusivity in this matter will be violated. And that they will not be able to shoot unarmed citizens-suckers with impunity, because. from the PM can fly to the return line, and it is just as painful as from the "Beretta". Therefore, ordinary citizens, driven to despair, will continue to buy "non-legacies" - double-barreled guns and make sawed-off pieces of them, and after use, simply drop them. After all, with the current laws, which justify the deputies and condemn ordinary people for the same act, any indulgence in relation to weapons will give nothing. We need a lot of work with the laws, and no one wants to take it on.
    2. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 20 September 2013 13: 33
      +1
      Quote: Sadykoff
      Here 3D printers will go to the people and a person will print a gun or a rifle for himself. Everything you need on the Internet.


      He will print prostheses and crutches when he is released from a medical institution.
  6. f4b2
    f4b2 20 September 2013 09: 56
    18
    The article is correct.
    But one more important aspect should be taken into account.
    In our country, the concept of self-defense is described in such a way that self-defense itself is impossible.
    The defender must think about the adequacy of the measures, about the need to persuade the attacker,
    explain to him his wrong ...
    That is, the usual situation continues, when everyone understands everything, but the law reflects incomprehensibly what.
    The attacker is not a priori constrained by any restrictions.
    Just try to give a shovel on the head with a shovel, which climbed into your (!!!) summer cottage at night, it is not clear why ...
    Even if you do not beat him, who will fall on the bunk? And I don’t care that your wife and baby are sleeping there. And you have no time to figure out what he is doing here ...
    So first - laws turned to common sense by the face. And not ... um, another place.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 20 September 2013 10: 37
      -2
      Quote: f4b2
      The attacker is not a priori constrained by any restrictions.
      Dear Vasily, a criminal (intruder) will always have a head start precisely because he does not play by the rules, and no weapon will solve the problem here. You propose to turn the laws, how is that? A "ukurok" who has penetrated into someone else's house already falls under the article, and even if he is "hit in the head with a shovel," the Law is not on his side, especially if he has a criminal record, alcohol or drug intoxication. Shoot him? In our country, even the state does not have the right to do this, there is no death penalty, moreover, without trial and investigation, to personal preference and discretion. The laws can, after all, be turned in such a way that it will be possible for a drunken oligarch to shoot a man at an intersection, and his guards will testify that he was defending himself, and not being bullied, for the right to make way for him. The sacred right to self-defense should not be identified with the lynching, and the love of arms should not be confused with whims.
      1. Colonel
        Colonel 20 September 2013 11: 32
        +7
        Question to Per se. How to implement
        Holy right to self-defense
        ? Wait until they bleed loved ones and report to the police ??? Give the little guy a drink and ask him to leave ??? The principle "My home is my fortress" was proclaimed a long time ago, but, unfortunately, it does not work for us. And all you need is to legislate the provision that only a representative of the law can come to me without an invitation and only with a sanction for this. All other attempts to penetrate, I can cut at my discretion. And everything, like a grandmother, will whisper. And talk about a drunk oligarch is from the evil one.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 20 September 2013 13: 07
          +2
          Quote: colonel
          Question to Per se. How to implement
          It was very simple, Valery, when a man with a kitchen knife cut armed bandyukov that they had entered the house, and he did the right thing. He defended his family and home, not having the right to kill, he defended himself adequately. Here, the murder of the enemy is like an accident leading to the death of criminals. Whether he has a hunting rifle or a rifled sporting rifle, use them, it is still the use of improvised means, since their direct purpose is hunting and sporting shooting. Another thing is a military weapon, it is not for signaling functions, not for a traumatic effect, it has one purpose - the destruction of the enemy. He pulled out a combat barrel - shoot! You are a person with experience, you probably know the power of arms, if you have been in a stressful situation, you also know that when your blood boils, you are a different person, and it is difficult to guarantee that your actions will be adequate and fair. In addition to good, decent people, there are a lot of scum who want to get weapons and the right to kill. I really love weapons, believe me, but I am sick of slobbering cowboy, boys who haven’t played the war, who imagine themselves to be the masters of the universe, if they had a gun. It is easy for our men to be led to divorce those who want to make big money on weapons. They have already done well above the minuses, in righteous anger ... Who benefits from it? Deputy Roman Khudyakov stood up for the legalization of short-barreled weapons in Russia, spoke fiery speeches with arguments and facts. It didn't work, then he was very much beaten in the center of the city by the Dagi, who, even after the arrest, defiantly rushed at the reporters, playing a bagel. Is this a "lucky" coincidence in favor of legalization? There will be more than one article in the media for weapons, there is a lot of money behind this, not our safety. Now, about your home, it is considered inviolable anyway, you don't need to dissemble here either. There should be order in the country, everyone should be good at their own business, including the police, then the bars on the windows will not be required along with pistols. We must fight the reason, not the consequences, exacerbating the situation, to the delight of our enemies.
          1. Geisenberg
            Geisenberg 20 September 2013 13: 48
            +5
            Quote: Per se.
            Quote: colonel
            Question to Per se. How to implement
            Very simple, Valery, it was when a peasant cut a knife with an armed bandit that he climbed into the house and did it right. He defended his family and home, not having the right to kill, adequately defended himself. Here the killing of the enemy is like an accident that led to the death of criminals.


            Man do you have a head on your shoulders? What other accident ??? It turns out that an accident at work chtoli? Gopnik's non-compliance with safety regulations? That is, the gopnik wanted to kill the child, they killed him for this and this is an accident? Apparently, in your TB, you should have finished your father first ... but your father turned out to be wrong, illegal.
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 20 September 2013 21: 37
              -1
              Quote: Geisenberg
              Man do you have a head on your shoulders?
              Yes, on the shoulders. You don't even go into the meaning, how are you going to understand the laws and deal with the use of weapons. And no need to poke me, they did not serve in one regiment. Life is not Half-Life, dear Dr. Freeman. It's useless to argue with you, stay with yours, in the end, you have the right to your opinion.
          2. Colonel
            Colonel 20 September 2013 14: 19
            +8
            Quote: Per se.
            man cut a knife with armed bandits

            I think that the man was very lucky that his case was lit up in the media. Otherwise, due to the measurement of the limits of necessary defense with the wrong ruler, he would have gone with a jigsaw to felling. The author of the article is right, in our country "justice" was initially imprisoned under the accusation of a normal citizen in excess, and "what would have happened if ..." he (justice) is not interested. I agree with you that stress changes a person, often to the point of being unrecognizable and the free carrying of barrels in the country will cause a surge in deaths, both from thugs and from normal people, and this will continue until the skill of a responsible attitude towards one's own trunk. The price can be extremely high and there is something for our drivers to think about, but what prevents the house of a law-abiding citizen from securing the immunity clause, supported not only by letters on paper, but also by a patron in the chamber, is not clear. I also agree about order in the country, but it will be sometime, but we live now and crime reports are also from the present, not from the old.
          3. jasper
            jasper 21 September 2013 14: 17
            0
            attach to each citizen for the cop? enough money in the budget?
          4. shishkin7676
            shishkin7676 24 February 2016 15: 11
            0
            The main thing is not in the sale or sale of weapons, on TV they showed how in one village a hooligan terrorized everyone without a knife and a weapon, only with the Criminal Code, they say I will set fire to me and try to touch me, the villagers killed him and then justice woke up and began ... by the way in the USSR was the norm when you write a statement. they say, take action or I will kill and in the case of "kill" this statement was an indulgence. !!!!
      2. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 20 September 2013 13: 40
        +4
        Quote: Per se.
        The holy right to self-defense should not be identified with the Lynch court, and the love of arms should not be confused with a whim.


        It is not necessary to replace a warm tukt with a soft one. The law should initially give a person the right to protect his life by all available means. If I suddenly think that a dummy who crawled into my house threatens my life, I must have the right to shoot him, in the end why do I just climb on ?? to spread the cards with me? or maybe I will give him a dose and he will dump? or all the same, I will not give him a dose and he will try to step over me ???

        Regarding the oligarch. Again, inappropriately there is a blizzard of revenge about the oligarch in the drink who sat behind the wheel to shoot and just do some fun.

        I give a minus for the lack of thought.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 20 September 2013 14: 57
          -1
          In my house I will find so many objects that allow you to send a person to the next world, that the trunk is not needed. And, you know, in the vast majority of cases I will be right. But to prove something after a street fight, this is another task, everyone will say that he was first attacked.
        2. nerd.su
          nerd.su 20 September 2013 15: 56
          -3
          Quote: Geisenberg
          If I suddenly think that a dummy who crawled into my house threatens my life, I should have the right to shoot him, in the end why do I just climb on?

          And in the face to give him and throw out of the house is not fate? Or take it to the police? Fearfully? laughing Now you start to broadcast about two or more lessons. Isn't an iron door easier to install? Lattices? Or do you think serious people or inadequate (drunk, stoned, brittle) will stop you from having a trunk?
      3. f4b2
        f4b2 20 September 2013 14: 46
        +5
        Complete nonsense.
        I will not give examples, they are full on the Internet, on TV, etc.
        "falls under the article ..." Yeah. Exactly. hits, already runs.
        And there are only two options in this situation.
        0. He is the unreal that you proposed. You hit him on the head. The police arrive, twist their hands to this idiot (not for you, not for you. For some reason ...), takes him away and judges him in a month. IIIIIIII for 5 years, dear. Ask any friend who works in law enforcement if he remembers such a case. At least one.

        The reality that is now.
        1. He just dumps upon seeing you. If you are so big and scary. Bruce Lee Valuev, in short. Iiiiii? What, will you call the police? And let's go.

        2. You are not Fedor Emelianenko. AND? ... And he does not dump. but just ..t you in, ... well, where the thread, where to get it. He falls under the article. And you? Ah, sorry. you're lucky, you still move there. And where did he go there. And where he wants, in fact. you're lucky, you're wallowing. Alive, yet.

        Option 1a. True, there is, and we have an option. Recently I was a witness myself.
        In the neighbor’s house ... there was an alarm button and a howler. He pushed, seeing incomprehensibly someone climbing over at dusk. And it was lucky that the guys arrived, as expected, on the UAZ and in uniform with weapons. Beauties. True, the one who climbed, of course, and the track caught a cold. But the situation was discharged. But THIS suits a very limited circle of people, right? Due to financial, other restrictions ....
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 20 September 2013 22: 10
          0
          Quote: f4b2
          The reality that is now.
          Sorry, you have to write thrillers. I don’t know how old you are, now is a different time, not Soviet. Then, however, there was also all sorts of things, they made "fools", walked with a pig, fought with soldier's belts. For the first time they put a sawed-off shotgun to my chest right at the school, the boy from the juvenile colony returned, earning authority from his punks. Then, however, there were concepts, expressed that he thought, no one touched a finger, but when he returned home, at the age of twelve, he roared with resentment and conscious fear. I have always loved and love weapons, before the army went to the section, fired from a small car, it came in handy in the service. After the army, while studying at the university, I was persuaded to shoot sports with a pistol. Then there were no bars on the windows of residential buildings, and the keys were left under the rug. The Soviet Union ... A misfortune came from whence they did not expect it, the bourgeoisie won without a war, bad guys-traders grew up. I have something to compare with, not a personal weapon, especially in the hands of a coward, that ensures security and order in the country. May God give you not to drag around wastelands at night, and not to kill anyone. You can find adventures on your ass and with weapons, and you will lose your weapons, and maybe your life. Again, there are already a lot of weapons that can be used legally, there is a law "On weapons", that's enough.
  7. _KM_
    _KM_ 20 September 2013 10: 09
    +5
    The article is good, everything is written on the case. In addition, the fight with weapons puts a lot of pressure on shooting sports. For example: to acquire small things, you need a 5-year experience (after all, the RED Cut!), And a 12-gauge shotgun can be bought without experience. It seems the people responsible for regulating the circulation of weapons in it deeply, systematically do not understand. And they don’t even want to do it.
  8. zadorin1974
    zadorin1974 20 September 2013 10: 09
    +5
    First of all, the law on the inviolability of private property must be brought to mind. As long as you have a house (land, an apartment, a farm, etc.), criminals break into you and you can’t do anything even with legal weapons (you law-abiding - in your safe and discharged) well, if it turned out to be deflected by checks, they’ll get stuck if the article for excess is not soldered
  9. Petrix
    Petrix 20 September 2013 10: 10
    -4
    This is a philosophical question. There is such: "reject evil with good." In fact, the armament of the population preserves the causes of crime. Those. citizens armed now can sleep peacefully. In fact, an unarmed society will look for ways to eliminate the causes of crime, and weapons contribute to a false sense of strengthening the rule of law. Crime will adapt and the hooligans will no longer just have knives, but with pistols and will shoot ahead of the curve (what if the victim is armed?). The statistics of general crimes may decrease, but the percentage of deaths and the total number of victims will increase.
    1. mejik
      mejik 20 September 2013 12: 07
      +6
      Quote: Petrix
      Statistics of common crimes may decrease, but the percentage of deaths and the total number of victims will increase.

      Yes, no need to invent and build a Vanga. Kingdom of heaven to her. The Constitutional Court has long been allowed in Moldova, and so, people are now dead there. Gop-stop went down in history right away.
      1. Petrix
        Petrix 20 September 2013 12: 14
        -1
        And in Moldova there are no crimes and people enjoy a free life?

        I'm not talking about whether it is possible or not? I am about the trends in society. If there is a need to arm, then there is a disease of society. In a safe environment, guns are not needed, and a dangerous society with guns cannot be fixed.
        1. mejik
          mejik 20 September 2013 14: 09
          +8
          Quote: Petrix
          In a safe environment, guns are not needed, and a dangerous society with guns cannot be fixed.
          Oh well. profess non-resistance to evil. It is commendable, cho. But you do not know what you are talking about. God forbid you to experience what I felt like to my friends. Since the ninety-third year, I have legally owned the Saiga. Bought only after the death of his father and armed night robbery of friends. Where finally a wonderful society was, you will not say. A wonderful utopian society. Behind the highest idea of ​​society at the expense of the rights of the individual. It is so old, the Society lives, but my father is not alive. The society is rich, but the welfare of the family of my friends is lost, and thank God that they didn’t kill anyone by miracle. But in the end, the family fell apart, unable to get out of the pit into which armed robbers pushed her. You do not know what you are talking about! But speak and speak ... And for your own demagogy you cannot see life.
          Google for Moldova to help, Do not consider it work. That would not be an empty philosophy to hide behind.
          1. Petrix
            Petrix 20 September 2013 16: 16
            -2
            Quote: mejik
            Oh well. profess non-resistance to evil.

            I confess resistance, but at a higher priority, with raising the question of reasons.
            Quote: mejik
            Since the ninety-third year, I have legally owned the Saiga. Bought only after the death of his father and armed night robbery of friends.

            If I were you, I would have done the same. But now my environment is not criminal and I'm not going to escalate the situation under the fear of criminal news on TV. If, however, my family and I are in danger, then measures must be taken, including the acquisition of weapons. But now I believe that a weapons permit threatens me and society.
            1. Ka-52
              Ka-52 20 September 2013 17: 41
              +2
              Petrix judging by the flag, you are from Belarus!

              Therefore, you can understand your point of view! When the institutes of power operate, when the police work, then the laws written under the USSR work fine!

              Two different methods are described here:

              1) American. Here are your words
              In fact, an unarmed society will look for ways to eliminate the causes of crime, and weapons contribute to a false sense of strengthening the rule of law.


              2) Civilized, let's call him "Belarusian" winked . Normal state takes care of the people. And eliminates crime problems ... And tightens the punishment for offenses.

              Question to power! Which cannot decide in any way which way she should choose .. request

              On the other hand, there is an example of Brazil (negative), but there are mainly social problems and in order to delay the local authority, it is necessary to conduct a military operation. Eh .. somewhere already gone there already ..

              Worst of all, when the Government can not choose either one or the other .. Like r **** in the hole.

              "If you are afraid of the Sheep ... then be so kind as to protect them from the Wolf! Or Let the sheep Sharpen their horns and hooves, and do not cut them down!"

              Here is my opinion. hi
              1. jasper
                jasper 21 September 2013 14: 27
                0
                and a cute dad destroyed the arrow with uralkali, relatives of the 90s breathed, godfather laughing
        2. jasper
          jasper 21 September 2013 14: 24
          0
          it is a recovery of society, because only a citizen has the right to arms, before it was his duty in general, because a citizen should live by the principle of who, if not him, will clean up the street, protect himself, the family of neighbors, and not become a liberal, screaming, help the state! save it! ah did not have time, then start to vilify him and claim his right, forgetting about his duties, including Civil
    2. Avenger711
      Avenger711 20 September 2013 14: 55
      +2
      Idiots do not understand that the most important thing in an attack is to deprive the enemy of the ability to somehow resist.
    3. jasper
      jasper 21 September 2013 14: 21
      0
      a hooligan, for that a hooligan, who is a bully on a courage, will know that there is a chance to get a bullet in the forehead and the courage will disappear
  10. vitek1233
    vitek1233 20 September 2013 10: 11
    +5
    Those in power do not want those in power so that citizens can protect themselves and loved ones, we do not have such a right de facto
  11. Petrix
    Petrix 20 September 2013 10: 35
    +6
    The death penalty has been abolished in Russia. Even a maniac with dozens of victims, the state does not take life. From a legal point of view, it is very difficult to draw a clear line between the permissible use of firearms in self-defense. On the one hand, the defender arrogates to himself the right to execute the criminal for his intentions, on the other hand, if this is revenge, lynching takes place, which is also not welcomed by law.

    When there is a threat to the life of yours and your loved ones, of course you need to use any means of salvation, but when you acquire a weapon, a person realizes that he will use it, that he will end up in such a situation. The best way to protect yourself is not to create such situations. Do not steal and build fences with cameras and guards, but live with equal neighbors and with open doors. Do not argue with the drunk in bars, but make efforts to eliminate drunkenness in society, etc.
  12. FunkschNNX
    FunkschNNX 20 September 2013 10: 42
    +6
    Citizens need weapons to protect themselves from criminals, and in our country, most criminals worthy of execution are usually in power. They will NEVER allow citizens to own weapons, because taking into account their filth (power), corruption, etc. citizens may, suddenly, want to shoot at police officers or deputies or some particularly arrogant inspectors. And in principle, I fully understand these citizens.
    1. jasper
      jasper 21 September 2013 14: 28
      0
      Yeah, how in 1918 "power" robbed and killed its people
  13. Normal
    Normal 20 September 2013 11: 21
    +7
    There will be many arguments against the short barrels. There will be such verbal balancing act and demagogy that all reasonable arguments will be rejected. There will be lamentations about spilled blood and claims that we are drunken monkeys with pomegranates. And part of all this is already under discussion.
    But! A FREE CITIZEN is required to own a weapon and carry it. The ban on carrying weapons is for SLAVES and for criminals. Everything else does not matter.
    If a free citizen renounces possession and carrying weapons under the pretext of transferring the function of protecting himself and his loved ones to the state, then he loses the right to be considered free - he is a state slave.
    Having a weapon for a man is just as natural as having a woman’s makeup, and even more, since a woman can perform her child-bearing function even without makeup, and a man without a weapon cannot fulfill the function of protecting his woman and offspring.
    All arguments against gun ownership are liberal pacifist self-deception.
    1. Petrix
      Petrix 20 September 2013 11: 56
      +1
      Quote: Normal
      But! A FREE CITIZEN is required to own a weapon and carry it

      Do you always carry a knife or club? If so, then you are not a free citizen, but a citizen awaiting an attack. Did you steal something or offend someone?

      I want to live in a society free from crime, live without a gun in my pocket and without locks on the doors. Armament pushes society towards the Middle Ages, where problems are not solved by reason but by threat. It is necessary not to arm, but to educate real people who will not take the criminal path.

      We will arm ourselves. The next step - all district police officers in bulletproof vests and traffic police on armored cars? Or will the number of pistols limit the number of bandits in power? This will not be corrected. Weapons are needed when you go to war. So we have a war?
      1. saygon66
        saygon66 20 September 2013 12: 59
        +2
        _ For information: Currently, personal protective equipment (bulletproof vests and helmets) are required to be worn by officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, operational groups of private security companies, and collectors in the line of duty! Failure to comply with these requirements will be punished with considerable fines!
        1. zadorin1974
          zadorin1974 20 September 2013 13: 46
          +5
          in principle, this is so -BUT! ! ! when I got a job in the GBR and after the divorce I started to weep bronik everything just mocked me for about two months (I’m a driver) the chaser stuck in with a gun-all arguments that they didn’t convince me of anyone at home-if by order (through a premium) and they received all but we didn’t get a change from the trunk. But when we got into the batch and we were cut, it’s easy due to my partner’s waistcoat, they all nodded my head well and I have to carry it. And what do you think they wear? The answer is usually like this — It will never happen to me like that - I have a trunk and close to me I will not let anyone at
          1. saygon66
            saygon66 20 September 2013 13: 54
            +4
            - Health is more expensive than show-offs ... Definitely!
      2. saruman
        saruman 20 September 2013 15: 08
        +6
        Quote: Petrix
        Armament pushes society towards the Middle Ages, where problems are not solved by reason but by threat.


        I would like to be pushed into the "Middle Ages" like in Switzerland.
      3. mejik
        mejik 20 September 2013 15: 33
        +4
        Quote: Petrix
        Weapons are needed when you go to war. So we have a war?
        You look like an alien, old man.
        Fourteen years ago, I changed my place of residence, because In Kalmykia at that time, to put it mildly, it was uncomfortable to live. Chechnya infected her and nationalism. I live in the blessed Krasnodar Territory, but there is enough shit here. I know the kushevka. Rostov-papa is nearby. And why are you in a comrade from Belarus why are you discussing things that are far from yourselves. Troll itches. No one is against the Belarusian safe society. But forgive me, with your charter in a strange monastery for what? Ai, ai. Tell Batsk that he would disarm, Belarus does not threaten anyone.
        1. Petrix
          Petrix 20 September 2013 16: 57
          0
          Quote: mejik
          And why are you in a comrade from Belarus why are you discussing things that are far from yourselves.

          I am Russian person. There is crime in Belarus too. Some people also want to have weapons legally for self-defense. But you do not answer for the whole of Russia.

          Quote: mejik
          In Kalmykia at that time, to put it mildly, it was uncomfortable to live. Chechnya infected her and nationalism. I live in the blessed Krasnodar Territory, but there is enough shit here.

          Tell me honestly: the reasons for all this - the lack of weapons among the population?

          In a dangerous place, it is vital to have a weapon for self-defense. Why arm calm areas? There are two options:
          1. Make all areas troubled and allow the sale (and Belarus, then I will buy weapons myself).
          2. Make all areas calm, comfortable and not allow the sale.

          The choice is ours.
      4. Normal
        Normal 20 September 2013 16: 49
        +5
        Petrix
        Once again for those who are not attentive:
        A FREE CITIZEN is required to own a weapon and carry it. The ban on carrying weapons is for SLAVES and for criminals. Everything else does not matter.
        .....
        All arguments against gun ownership are liberal pacifist self-deception.
        1. Petrix
          Petrix 20 September 2013 17: 25
          -3
          A free citizen is free and not OBLIGED TO. Having a pistol you will not come out of "slavery", but only deceive yourself into thinking that you have come out.

          "Everything else does not matter" just for you.

          "All arguments against gun ownership are liberal-pacifist self-deception."
          Why hang tags? Do you play stereotypes of citizens?
    2. smprofi
      smprofi 20 September 2013 13: 07
      +4
      Quote: Normal
      All arguments against gun ownership are liberal - pacifist self-deception

      possibly.
      I myself first pulled the trigger of my father’s service certificate at about 5 years old: my father knelt down, held the pistol, and I “fired” ... then, when I grew up, I fired myself. mainly from PM. I've seen enough at the shooting range of different things.
      I can only say one thing: the right to have a weapon is probably good, but I am against giving it to anyone who wants it. ideally: he was trained, passed a medical examination and, like, everything. exactly the same with the car. only with a car it’s much easier to see that there are certain instances that you can’t trust technology, although he (maybe honestly) passed the SDA exam and passed a medical examination. with weapons it’s even worse: even it seems like the trained people do such things that you are struggling to understand how such a person could do.
      colleague Petrix rights
      Quote: Petrix
      I want to live in a society free from crime, live without a gun in my pocket

      to this I can only add historical facts: Hungary of the 56th, the SFRY of the early 90s and all the "hot spots" in the Soviet Union of the same 90s in most cases are due to the excess of the critical mass of barrels per capita.

      Want to protect your home and family? Pump shotgun to help you! and, by the way, a shotgun with buckshot in an apartment / house is much preferable to a bullet weapon.

      Want a short barrel and outdoor protection? I’m very interested in how you solve the problem of hidden wearing and removing the gun at least for a couple of seconds in the same autumn-winter period? Well, what will you do in the summer in transport at rush hour?

      and the last: if you are attacked, then this is a very short distance. Can you shoot and kill a person when you see his eyes? Have you ever done this? or at least kill some animal?
      1. Normal
        Normal 20 September 2013 14: 21
        +3
        Quote: smprofi
        , but I am against indiscriminately giving out to anyone.

        So do I. As against universal suffrage. Own weapons and have the right to vote can only be held by a member of society. Neither the dependent, nor the elderly, nor the minor, nor the offender, nor childless, nor unmarried can be considered an established member of society.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 20 September 2013 14: 49
          0
          Being married is a personal affair of everyone; an unemployed person can therefore be unemployed because there is such power and he has the right to demand changes.
          1. Normal
            Normal 20 September 2013 16: 40
            +1
            Quote: Avenger711
            Being married is a private matter for everyone,

            Just like everything in this life.
            Someone works, supports a family, raises children, pays taxes, complies with rules and laws, fulfills obligations imposed on him by society and the state.
            And someone lives for himself, thumps, exists at the expense of society and to the detriment of him, does not produce offspring and generally does not perform functions useful to society, isolates himself from society and contrasts himself with society.
            And why should these two individuals have equal rights and opportunities in society?
            1. Avenger711
              Avenger711 20 September 2013 16: 51
              0
              Vanya, works in 2 jobs, contains a disabled father, but cannot find a wife. The reasons for this may be a wagon and a small cart.
              Petya, married by stupidity at the age of 18, works somewhere in the guard because there is nothing to do there, he drinks regularly, he beats his wife.

              The question is, what the hell do you climb to where government access is even undesirable? And how will you check each citizen to see what he sees worthy.
    3. Avenger711
      Avenger711 20 September 2013 14: 53
      -1
      The state is intended to protect its population, and it does this at a higher level than a street fight. You can get weapons to protect the family in the army or law enforcement agencies. This time. The state, giving rights, also gives obligations, if the fulfillment of these obligations is a slave's share for you, then get out of this state, and don’t stir up water here.
      1. smprofi
        smprofi 20 September 2013 15: 26
        +2
        Quote: Avenger711
        The state is intended to protect its population.

        the way it is!
        more precisely ... it should be!
        1. mejik
          mejik 20 September 2013 15: 39
          0
          Quote: smprofi
          Quote: Avenger711
          The state is intended to protect its population.

          the way it is!
          more precisely ... it should be!

          But this is not, or rather, not for everyone!
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 20 September 2013 16: 51
            -2
            The gun in your pocket will not help you improve the situation.
  14. Double major
    Double major 20 September 2013 11: 29
    +5
    "The Lord made people different, and Colonel Colt made them equal." According to legend, it was this phrase that was stamped on the tombstones of an outstanding gunsmith.
  15. antonio
    antonio 20 September 2013 11: 29
    +1
    Our government is so scared to the horror of its people, And then there's a weapon for the people to give .. They won’t go for it! We do not live in the States or Canada where people are respected.
  16. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 20 September 2013 12: 00
    0
    "Incompetent opponents of the short-barreled" is five, urgently cast in granite.
    Yes, fewer citizens are killed from firearms than other objects, this means only one thing, a system has been established and there is a system that restricts the mass use of weapons for criminal purposes. "Competent" supporters of short-barreled as usual do not mention only one and the most important thing. The mass short-barreled weapon is designed and optimized for stealthy carrying and killing people, not for hunting, not for sports. For shooting at people and killing people, any training and polishing of equipment are intended. A person who acquires a pistol understands that he will use it to kill people and acquires it precisely for these purposes, regardless of motivation.
    Now, for a second, we recall that, in spite of everything, the death penalty has been abolished even for the most fierce criminals, but your neighbor can accidentally or intentionally kill you or someone from your family at any moment, and attention will put him at the maximum. He just bought a gun just in case, and just in case keeps it loaded, and just in case he carries it with him. Around crime, every single day they kill him and rob him, yeah, only a pistol saves.
    For those who want to protect themselves and loved ones, I remind you. On the territory of Russia, you can absolutely calmly and legally buy weapons that are not intended for uncontrolled covert carrying and killing of people. If this is beyond your strength, or you are not being sold for one reason or another, then you cannot buy a gun either.
  17. Petrix
    Petrix 20 September 2013 12: 08
    -2
    I am against weapons. There was a case in childhood, everything worked out well. But in my house, in peacetime, there will be no weapons in order to avoid accidents.

    American citizens are armed, and what? Is power trembling there before the people? People are being milked both here and there. Only cops there are more twitchy, just a little grab at the guns. And it’s much more difficult for the authorities to restore order than with an unarmed population. But the criminal government will not stop it. Or do you want an orange revolution, but armed? Yes, the United States would not refuse a permit for weapons in Russia.
    1. mejik
      mejik 20 September 2013 15: 46
      +3
      Quote: Petrix
      I am against weapons. Citizens of America.
      I am for the licensed sale of short-barreled weapons. And I do not care what's in America, in Botswana. I am glad for you that you don’t have it, but don’t tell us what we need. Agreed, no?
    2. mejik
      mejik 20 September 2013 15: 56
      +1
      Quote: Petrix
      There was a case in childhood, everything worked out well. But in my house, in peacetime, there will be no weapons in order to avoid accidents.

      I suspect your childish unsuccessful experience. Are you going to project for the rest of your adult life? Have you had any negative experiences with women? Can you tell us that now you are with men for life? And we will categorically vtyuhivat it summing up the philosophical base.
    3. revnagan
      revnagan 22 September 2013 16: 52
      0
      Quote: Petrix
      Or do you want an orange revolution, but armed?

      Yes, nothing will happen. Well, they do not make revolutions with civilian weapons. You know, short-barreled weapons have been allowed in Moldova for more than 10 years. And now, remember how passions seethed in recent years, what rallies gathered, how violently this all happened. And why ? None of the legal barrels fired, like that. Can you say that Moldovans have a centuries-old culture of handling weapons, are they more balanced than we are, or do they drink less?
  18. Yun Klob
    Yun Klob 20 September 2013 12: 10
    +4
    Yes, even the officers of the Armed Forces are not given weapons to us, they are hiding under the lock. And the police, who are recruited by advertisement, are laden with weapons from all sides.
  19. smprofi
    smprofi 20 September 2013 12: 21
    +2
    Kill not guns, and people - hmm ... that's the name of the recent report "Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People", published by Harvard researchers Don Kates and Gary Mauser. anyone interested - you can read the original, but in the language of the State Department:
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

    interesting statistics are given: per 100 population the number of murders (Murder Rate) and the number of owners of firearms (Rate of Gun Ownership)



    however, it is possible that statistics on Austria were spoiled a couple of days ago by one poacher: 3 police officers and one paramedic who tried to help the policeman were killed while trying to arrest.
    1. Petrix
      Petrix 20 September 2013 12: 35
      +5
      Quote: smprofi
      interesting statistics

      It just shows that there is no connection between the number of killings and the number of weapons. The greater the intrasocial stability (from economic, political, etc. reasons), the fewer crimes. Stability on the pistols does not hold.
      1. mejik
        mejik 20 September 2013 15: 52
        +1
        Quote: Petrix

        It just shows that there is no connection between the number of killings and the number of weapons.

        I am glad that you understand this, it is a pity that you do not accept. You are simply against what would the citizens of Russia have the opportunity to legally have a COP, just against.
        1. Petrix
          Petrix 20 September 2013 16: 38
          +1
          Quote: mejik
          You just mind

          So why have a weapon if this does not solve the problem? What problem do we solve? How to increase arms sales, make money on it? If it brings peace, then I am for it.

          Nuclear weapons have not only become a deterrent. Since then, civilization has been threatened with destruction. And so we will send pistols at each other and stand. Who is stronger than a criminal or law-abiding citizen? You are going to play by the rules of crime, you lose, you are not a bandit.
  20. Manul
    Manul 20 September 2013 13: 14
    +3
    All the laws are written for bandits and thieves, unfortunately .. And how I would like the scum to sit in prison, and normal people could safely walk the streets, not expecting that a bastard with a bat will get out of a car moving along the sidewalk and be beaten to death for not allowing her to pass. At these moments I would like a shot to sound and the "baseball player" writhe with a shot in his leg. Sorry for the bloodlust.
  21. Avenger711
    Avenger711 20 September 2013 13: 20
    +7
    Bullied already. And what are the statistics on the use of weapons for real self-defense? Is there at least 1%?
    Take your head out of your ass and understand that an attacker in 99% of cases chooses a victim who can’t resist and almost always sends him to the next world before she can get the barrel, which in addition can not be stored in a ready state for a long time, t to. he can just misfire.

    And the authorities with their army don’t give a damn about your pistols, since any rebellion with pistols and hunting rifles has been choked on by armored cars.

    Further, the criminal really has no reason to shine the barrel, but firstly, if you did not establish his identity, then even having this person in a huge database will not help in any way, you must first get the barrel itself, and then draw conclusions that there is a certain bullet from material evidence released precisely from it. That is, the risk of disclosure is close to zero, especially if there was no shooting at all, because the victim did not resist. And, secondly, from somewhere the criminal got the trunk, somewhere this trunk was registered, it is unlikely that he was stolen directly from the factory.

    If people do not kill weapons, then how can the proliferation of weapons control the level of crime, otherwise how can they expand the possibilities of safe killing? But it has a very positive effect on the cases of mass shootings that happen several times a year in the United States.

    To cut the air? I now have a really powerful air gun, this is not a gun with cans and round bullets that leave a bruise, but a hefty horseradish with manual pumping of the balloon and capable of shooting both balls and pointed bullets piercing a board, can, bird or human belly. In fact, a purely sporting weapon, unsuitable for self-defense in principle, like other similar trunks, but quite suitable for hooliganism. If such trunks create a lot of problems, it’s easier to ban the sale, as the sale of children's air balloons under 6 mm plastic balls was forbidden than to start extra bureaucracy and most importantly then deal with the consequences of what could have been avoided.

    Training? Maybe people in Switzerland are used to having a rifle at home, which does not pay attention to it, but in our country most of the population in everyday life does not come in contact with weapons. And it’s much easier not to create a problem at all than to solve it later.
    1. fennekRUS
      fennekRUS 20 September 2013 15: 32
      0
      1. a barrel, which, moreover, cannot be kept in a ready state for a long time, because it can simply misfire. - revolvers and pistols with double-acting trigger, learn the materiel.
      2. And the authorities with their army don’t give a damn about your pistols, since armored cars were invented, any rebellion with pistols and hunting rifles is crushing at times. - I agree with this 100%
      3.Regulate the air? I now have a really powerful air gun, this is not a gun with cans and round bullets that leave a bruise, but a hefty horseradish with manual pumping of the balloon and capable of shooting both balls and pointed bullets piercing a board, can, bird or human belly- acquired by Roja, do you have? If there is no license, Article 222, congratulations, you are a criminal.
      4. Training? Maybe in Switzerland the people are used to having a rifle at home, which does not pay attention to it, but in our country a large part of the population does not come into contact with weapons in everyday life. And it is much easier not to create a problem at all than to solve it later. There will simply not be a problem. For a maximum of 3-5% of the population will acquire "pistils". -drops in the sea, Until the 70s in the USSR there were no licenses for hunting weapons. The lowest crime rates were recorded during the same period.
      Another reference, starting from 1951 to 2008 in the territory of the USSR and then the Russian Federation, 182 thousand 114 units of small arms were stolen, lost during the fighting or lost while drinking. And another 166 thousand 265 units were seized by officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FSB from criminals and ordinary citizens. Including 55 thousand 567 submachine guns and pistols, not listed in the police file cabinet at all. To date, 13 thousand 684 Kalashnikovs, 22 thousand 119 macaroons, 4089 TT pistols, 268 stechkins, 3634 Nagans, 504 Mausers, 705 Browning, 154 Beretta pistols, 203 Parabellums and 6114 award and museum Walters are wanted.
      Some trunks have a long biography: on August 8, 1951, the party organizer of the Verkhnegrekovsky communications center of the Rostov Region, Savchenko, shot four colleagues from the service Nagan and, having stolen a large sum of money, disappeared in an unknown direction. Savchenko was never found. But his gun came up in 1992 in the Tyumen region during the investigation of the murder of a watchman.
      There are two sources of “illegal” weapons in Russia: the police and the Armed Forces. In Soviet times, the army lost trunks when they were drunk or as a result of fires in warehouses. But the numbers were relatively small. But since the 90s, the situation has changed dramatically. Weapons flowed from the army arsenals in a wide stream. Losses in equipment have increased many times since the start of the Chechen wars. In total, judging by the search database, in the first and second Chechen wars, the Ministry of Defense lost 4 thousand 456 trunks. In Dagestan - 142, in Ingushetia - 74 and Kabardino-Balkaria - 15.
      Police officers are almost as good as the military about the number of “burnt” and “lost” trunks. During the Soviet era, 412 district police officers, operas and traffic cops lost their service pistols. Moreover, 80% of them were intoxicated.
      To summarize, the problems are far-fetched, and the "resolve-not resolve" disputes have nothing to do with the safety of citizens.
      1. mejik
        mejik 20 September 2013 16: 02
        0
        Quote: fennekRUS
        To summarize, the problems are far-fetched, and the "resolve-not resolve" disputes have nothing to do with the safety of citizens.

        The salvation of a drowning man is the work of the drowning man himself and she has nothing to do with the safety of onlookers. Did you want to say that? So why do onlookers limit the possibilities of drowning? Him?
        1. fennekRUS
          fennekRUS 22 September 2013 04: 33
          0
          fear of the unknown? I am more interested in weapons at the shooting range than in the mythical "self-defense", since I have noticed more than once that everyone understands their own under this term.
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 20 September 2013 17: 24
        0
        If there is no license, Article 222, congratulations, you are a criminal.


        Sold legally without any permission. I’ll be a criminal if, with the introduction of the relevant law, I don’t surrender or register.

        If only 3-5% gets pestles, then it makes no sense to stir up the water because of this. I admit that a significant part will prefer hidden wearing knives that are more effective in defense and not so annoying.

        At the same time, the lowest crime rates are recorded.


        But the guns have nothing to do with it. There was a time like that. Once again, there was a desire to register ruzhbayki, so there was a problem with their uncontrolled walking. I don’t exclude some incidents involving shooting from some civilian military hardware or transferred to a hunting rifle Simonov, which might not have been reported on the news, but the ministry made conclusions.
        1. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 20 September 2013 20: 01
          +2
          Quote: Avenger711
          But the guns have nothing to do with it. Such a time

          What time was it? It was a hungry, poor and very harsh time - the dashing 90s compared to the 50s and early 60s will seem like a resort. True, there were even more weapons on hand, but orders of magnitude more - my grandfather's family had 7 rifles, 1 submachine gun and 4 pistols, picked up on the battlefield. In the early 60s, the "maxims" were found, but immediately handed over to the competent authorities, by the way, together with the previously stored arsenal. And mind you, no one killed anyone, although they lived poorly and from hand to mouth in a 12 sq. m. 8 people (until 1962), because there was a ban on logging, and there was not enough money to buy it.
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 20 September 2013 21: 46
            0
            But after the civil and Great Patriotic War, the presence of tons of weapons from the battlefield had a very negative impact on the criminal situation.
            Someone may have lived in a bathhouse, but the bulk of the population has long been in poverty.
            1. Rakti-kali
              Rakti-kali 21 September 2013 17: 26
              0
              Quote: Avenger711
              But after the civil and Great Patriotic War, the presence of tons of weapons from the battlefield had a very negative impact on the criminal situation.

              Precisely because it was an unregistered and illegal weapon. Although its influence on the criminal situation is highly idealized and overpriced.
              Quote: Avenger711
              Someone may have lived in a bathhouse, but the bulk of the population has long been in poverty.

              Well, well ... Especially in villages where a year or two of the front line passed ...
        2. fennekRUS
          fennekRUS 22 September 2013 04: 29
          0
          "Firearms acquired by a citizen of the Russian Federation, firearms of limited damage and hunting pneumatic weapons with a muzzle energy of more than 7,5 J are subject to registration with the internal affairs body at the place of residence within two weeks from the date of purchase. In case of a change of residence, the citizen of the Russian Federation is obliged within two weeks from the date of registration at the new place of residence, apply to the relevant internal affairs body with an application for registration of the weapon belonging to him. "- apparently you have not such a powerful air. above article 13 of the current ZOO
    2. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 20 September 2013 19: 49
      +1
      Quote: Avenger711
      Bullied already.

      I am glad that self-criticism is not alien to you.
      Quote: Avenger711
      And what are the statistics on the use of weapons for real self-defense? Is there at least 1%?

      http://defenseweapon.ru/self-defense-statistics.html
      http://www.vooruzhen.ru/news/95/2263/
      To start.
      Quote: Avenger711
      Take your head out of your ass and understand

      So the task you set for yourself ...
      Quote: Avenger711
      the attacker in 99% of cases chooses a victim who can not resist

      I agree, but permission to carry the COP hidden will greatly complicate his task. For any, even very airy, creature with a gun will be able to suppress the counter-offensive directed against it, and once and for all.
      Quote: Avenger711
      and almost always send her to the next world before she can get the trunk,

      Yeah, all the gopniks suddenly turned into "Rimbaud" with steel balls and an incompressible point ... No, my friend, and the gopota did not turn into terminators, and the owners of the COP are also not all paralytic clugs (training and practice should become mandatory items if you want to get a COP) , so that the chances of going to the next world will grow just for the gopnik. Yes, I almost forgot, the Criminal Code allows you to protect not only itself but also third parties, so there will be a lot of dangers for the naughty gopota.
      Quote: Avenger711
      which, moreover, can not be stored for a long time in an alert state, because it can simply misfire.

      RAVE. Heavy.
      Quote: Avenger711
      And it’s much easier not to create a problem at all than to solve it later.

      In our country, it’s hard to find a job, it’s hard to raise children, it’s hard to live in general - this may not create a problem, but just get stuck ... oh, sorry this does not suit you, just hang yourself.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 20 September 2013 21: 57
        -2
        Hidden wearing suggests that the trunk still needs to be pulled out. And do not think that the gopnik will not cope with you while you pull it out. Curiosities, when the victim turns out to be a professional fighter precisely curiosities, in reality, the gopnik is much better than the victim who knows what to do and is better prepared for violence. The feeling is that all the fans of the trunks think that the attacker, and often not alone, just stands and waits for you to grab something there. In addition, if he himself does not have a weapon, and you are only threatened to fill his face, then for a shot, you will justifiably sit down. I’m silent about the psychological readiness to shoot.
        So leave your erotic fantasies about the trunks to yourself.
        1. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 21 September 2013 09: 28
          0
          Quote: Avenger711
          Hidden wearing suggests that the trunk still needs to be pulled out. And do not think that the gopnik will not cope with you while you pull it out.

          Reaching the barrel is not a Tunisian wedding, not even the most trained person can get and make a gun for shooting in 3-4 seconds (and this is from under warm outerwear), and if you practice a little and use a modern holster or bag with a compartment for a pistol, it is quite possible, as practice shows, to be made ready for shooting in 1-2 seconds.
          Quote: Avenger711
          Curiosities when the victim turns out to be a professional fighter

          That's it. And everyone should have a chance to protect themselves and loved ones.
          Quote: Avenger711
          in reality, the gopnik is much better than the victim who knows what to do and is better prepared for violence

          Come on!? Are they all pros? Yes, and such "better representing" are ready for violence only when the victim does not have the means and capabilities to resist.
          Quote: Avenger711
          The feeling is that all the fans of the trunks think that the attacker, and often not alone, just stands and waits for you to grab something there.

          The feeling is that all the opponents of the trunks think that the attacker (often not sober) always has special skills of a saboteur reconnaissance, moves at supernatural speed, has x-ray vision, can bite scrap with a point, and hammer nails into the rail with eggs ...
          Quote: Avenger711
          In addition, if he himself does not have weapons, and you are only threatened to fill his face, then for a shot, you’ll quite rightly sit down

          Today "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" publishes the ruling of the plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia, which essentially gives citizens carte blanche to defend their lives.

          The document explains in detail the rules of self-defense so that the bold and the right are not sent to jail. The main rule: you can protect your life in every way. Moreover, a person has the right to use force, even detaining the offender. Scoundrels should not walk freely when they have done misfortunes.

          Another important point: a person has the right to protect not only himself, but also others... Do you see someone being beaten? Don't pass by. The ruling, published today, "On the Application by Courts of Legislation on Necessary Defense and Causing Harm in the Detention of a Person Who Committed a Crime" puts the life of an honest person under special protection.
          http://www.rg.ru/2012/10/03/plenum-dok.html
          Quote: Avenger711
          I’m silent about the psychological readiness to shoot.

          Yeah, really it would be better to be silent ...
        2. jasper
          jasper 21 September 2013 14: 48
          0
          Do you have a driver’s license? did you study or bought them?
  22. Svyatoslavovich
    Svyatoslavovich 20 September 2013 13: 27
    0
    The article is nonsense based on inferiority complexes and paranoid asociality. Do not play enough war games as a child, go to serve in the Red Army or play airsoft.

    1. The carrying of a firearm or its imitation (traumatic) alone does not protect against attack.
    2. The probability of using a weapon in your pocket (holster, hide, bag) in a sudden attack confidently rolls to zero.
    3. The effectiveness of the use of weapons in an emergency directly depends on the psychological characteristics of a person, but people with "steel eggs" can solve problems without guns. In general, the effect will be negative, read http://topwar.ru/33480-sekrety-metkoy-strelby.html
    4. Opinion about the constraint of the pulled trunk, utopia. Psychologists have long proven that the sight of a pistol most often causes aggression in an opponent. This is the basis of the principle "get the barrel only when it's time to shoot".

    But the main thing is who is the first to run to buy a barrel, a fan of weapons and a schnick. A fan will admire it, go to the shooting range, enjoy the possession of a new toy, but he still does it now. A schnick will try to feel like a man and subconsciously begin to look for a way to assert himself. Which will lead to tragic situations like "oh, you cut me off, get a fascist grenade." But he will still remain a schnick.
    Remember the main thing, the weapon was created for one purpose - to KILL and it is not necessary to hang on it functions that are not inherent to it (to protect, etc.).
    1. DuraLexSedLex.
      DuraLexSedLex. 20 September 2013 14: 46
      +1
      There was an incident when I ran into a drunken man with a wasp, near a parking lot. A man was extremely surprised by the appearance of a pump-action shotgun from the car and quickly retreated without stinging at the products of American gunsmiths. I was not sickly letting go of the gun separately and the cartridges were separate.
      1. smprofi
        smprofi 20 September 2013 15: 31
        0
        Quote: DuraLexSedLex.
        There was a case

        expensive! different cases for / against you can bring a bunch. only it doesn’t change much
    2. mejik
      mejik 20 September 2013 16: 11
      +1
      Quote: Svyatoslavovich
      Article nonsense
      It seems that you have not read the article. Read at least the name. And the examples cited are all sorts of researchers who!long! calculated in the absence of a research field in the country, it simply touches. It’s not British researchers it was .. And the country of research of Mozambique. Or at a gopot of various cities conducted a poll.
      1. Svyatoslavovich
        Svyatoslavovich 18 October 2013 00: 43
        0
        I read the article quite carefully, and even the title twice. Apparently, in addition to the paragraph on researchers, you agree with everything, since there is nothing to add to that apart from gnawing and listing your own geographical knowledge.
    3. fennekRUS
      fennekRUS 22 September 2013 04: 36
      +1
      A fan will admire him, go to the shooting range, enjoy possession of a new toy, but he still does it. I will subscribe to this phrase.
  23. DuraLexSedLex.
    DuraLexSedLex. 20 September 2013 14: 42
    +2
    Gentlemen, stop breaking spears. We won’t have good legislation in terms of self-defense, but then we don’t have to stutter the short-barrels. We don’t decide this, we won’t be given that right. IMHO
    psUnder the house, OOOP, smooth and cut, but all for my beloved, not for reassurance, but for the soul sooner. For having primed something I’ll sit down.
    1. fennekRUS
      fennekRUS 20 September 2013 15: 36
      +4
      Personally, I don’t care about the defense, but I do not need to CHANCE me — this is only once, and I’m interested in the barrel exclusively at the shooting range a couple of times a month — two.
  24. Dimy4
    Dimy4 20 September 2013 15: 22
    +2
    The deadliest weapons in Russia, with the help of which two thirds of murders are committed in the country: an ax (1), a kitchen knife (2), a hammer (3)

    Proposal to the State Duma - should be banned without licenses, physical examinations, visits to district police officers, etc. use of these items. And then exactly quietness and smoothness will come and do not give a damn about the fact that most citizens use these items for their intended purpose. But they will not kill anyone with them, and the fact that they can kill them is for our State Duma little things that you can not pay attention to.
  25. Was mammoth
    Was mammoth 20 September 2013 18: 59
    0
    And on the next branch they argue, where to put, as it were, "extra" Kalash?
    1. Michael_59
      Michael_59 20 September 2013 19: 13
      +1
      Of course, the answer suggests itself - to distribute to the people, let them shoot each other, I’m waiting for less work.
  26. Michael_59
    Michael_59 20 September 2013 19: 12
    0
    Quote: redwolf_13
    You know Dear, I would not want to wish you. But God forbid that you would meet with a wife in a dark alley with a group of young people warmed up with alcohol and who would like to replenish their budget a little and flirt with your spouse at your expense. Here you will remember that what a pity that there is no short trunk in your pocket. You can say that there is no need to walk at night. BUT these young people walk both in the evening and in the afternoon. But no matter how the lion was selenium, the flock of jackals would devour the lion too. The authorities are afraid of the armed people and pour into the ears of the rest that WEAPONS ARE EVIL.


    Then they also have trunks, so this, of course, is difficult to think about.
  27. tank64rus
    tank64rus 20 September 2013 19: 31
    +3
    It is strange that the vast majority of our deputies have trunks of ponds including award pistols. This was recently told by one large police officer who asked them to be more modest. And how the conversation is only about the possibility of a law-abiding citizen to get a scream gun for the whole district. As if immediately formed a line of people wishing to clap their mother-in-law or a neighbor in the country. We have already armed crime so that their foreign colleagues cry out of envy, in addition to simple Kalash, they have exclusive weapons designed for special forces. In general, until there are two normal laws, the first about weapons and the second about its application will be killed with kitchen knives or weapons bought from under the floor.
  28. saygon66
    saygon66 20 September 2013 20: 09
    +2
    - So, what do we have in the bottom line? 50% of the spoken weapons to x ... laughing why, of the remaining 50, someone will not receive it according to medical indications, someone due to inhumane prices, the remaining weather will not do it .... Well, gentlemen of the Tadeput, we will logos for the legalization of KOs?
  29. kafa
    kafa 20 September 2013 20: 53
    +2
    Quote: sancho
    Politicians are very afraid of the armed population. For there is something they are afraid of! Especially a Russian person. He endures, endures, and then kaaak ... fuck .. no!
    Therefore, they do not adopt the law on short-barrels.
    Right now we’ll wait when gasoline grows beyond 40 rubles, when utilities are completely insolent, when schools become paid .....

    Che add agree completely
  30. understudy
    understudy 20 September 2013 22: 17
    +4
    The author is a police colonel, professor, doctor of legal sciences, honored lawyer, worked in the prosecutor's office and in justice, the author of many hundreds of scientific works ... I am silent about the mass of exciting detective stories - whether he knows the real problems and the real state of affairs with arms trafficking! Meanwhile, explicit decision-makers click on decision buttons. How long?
    Quote: Svyatoslavovich
    The article is nonsense based on inferiority complexes and paranoid asociality. Do not play enough war games as a child, go to serve in the Red Army or play airsoft.

    Interestingly, what heights in his development reached the author of such an categorical statement? However, "Office hamster, white-ticket" - this title also has the right to life.
  31. castle
    castle 20 September 2013 22: 22
    +3
    I wish you all good health. These conversations about "politicians and the armed people" are not entirely relevant. In the Czech Republic, any citizen has the right to own a firearm (you hand over documents, take a course of study and exams, shootings, disassembly, assembly, safety precautions, it is necessary that you do not have gross violations and that your psychiatrist confirms that you are adequate) buy and carry take it with you to your health, but if you are a civilian, then wear it only out of sight (somehow hidden, under a jacket, in a purse, in trousers, etc.). And not everyone loves modern politicians either. But don't shoot right away! And on the streets we are calm, maybe because we are allowed to have and carry weapons. Household things happen, but it's like everywhere else. And you can kill with a tube of lipstick. And there are very few firearms.
  32. placidus
    placidus 20 September 2013 23: 11
    +2
    Quote: Manul
    All laws are written under bandits and thieves unfortunately ..
    Surprised? And you can’t assume that a considerable percentage of those who write current laws in the nineties were / slightly / at odds with them?
  33. Cpa
    Cpa 21 September 2013 00: 34
    +2
    You can enter the receipt of weapons for a time under the account, as in the military base. To farmers, witnesses of the investigation, freight forwarders, etc. After the briefing and the psychiatrist, of course. Well, to the citizens who receive various types of threats. Then they should be deposited with the state. afraid of lack of control.
    Most people do not interfere in the chaos around, precisely because they intervene in someone else’s misfortune then fear for their family and home. It is better to pass by for them than to become defenseless against criminals.
    If there was an opportunity indicated by me, then people would behave differently.
    For example: a man installed a camera in his dacha that captured a thief. With this picture he goes to the police, where they tell him: "You can hang this picture on your wall, we don't need it!" The guy goes to photocopy the photo and sticks it on poles in the dacha After that, the thieves rush about in fury, and in indecision - whether to watch for the guy, or burn his dacha, or dump him out of the area.
    I think the guy would be interested in going to get weapons for a while, but this is not possible and he is very at risk. Therefore, people in Russia are frightened and do not interfere in other people's affairs, most of them are like mouse over holes.
    An example is given of the most banal of life.
    There are cooler ones, but this does not change the essence.
    1. jasper
      jasper 21 September 2013 14: 46
      0
      need to clearly distinguish between 2 types of weapons rights
      1. storage, any citizen who is the owner of a house, apartment, cottage or tenant of housing, must have the right to store houses, carry weapons in the area
      2. carrying a weapon, the same citizen in the performance of a number of duties, say a trucker. the owner of the store, taking the proceeds, the hunter, etc.

      self-responsible (direct responsibility of the psychiatrist for mowing) a certificate from a psychiatrist, the absence of outstanding convictions (if they are not related to violence and weapons, they do not care), serious insurance against civil liability like OSAGO, and training like driving.
      and of course a complete ban on "non-lethal" weapons, it reduces the permissible level of use of weapons
    2. fennekRUS
      fennekRUS 22 September 2013 04: 57
      +1
      "You can enter the receipt of weapons for a while under the register" Legislatively, such a procedure exists now. If you prove that your life is in danger, the Motherland will lend you a pistol. Then hand over.
  34. jasper
    jasper 21 September 2013 14: 38
    0
    once on a hunt, he himself didn’t turn off his cell phone and they called before they, miraculously, from work, had to return a day earlier, threw me to the railway station, it was good not far from the suburban train.
    a couple (piiii) of gopniks was mocking at the passengers, a linear patrol passed, like they took with them, returned ten minutes later to our carriage, again began to be mocked, I took out my gun and assembled it. put in cartridges, freaks blown away ...
    ps according to the law, they could take away my gun too, and the cops didn’t do anything with a gopp, how many people did they ruin the day? they almost raped the girl; of the men in the carriage, besides me, there was only one disabled person, legless
    so need a weapon or not?
    there seems to be no "direct threat to life", but it turns out that a law-abiding citizen, it was always humiliated and spat upon
  35. Leader
    Leader 22 September 2013 01: 04
    +1
    Yes, I wanted to spit on all these bans from the State Duma - a bunch of clowns and morons ...
  36. fennekRUS
    fennekRUS 22 September 2013 04: 54
    +3
    Hmm ... after all, the intensity of the controversy implies that there is a problem. Just do not throw in extremes. The weapon is not a demon, but not a plush toy. The usual tool to accelerate a piece of metal in the right direction. And it will not solve the problem, and will not create.
    In this I do not see a paradox, since by allowing citizens to buy pistols, we, in fact, will remain in the same place as now. The problems that those present are going to solve with the notorious "short-barreled" lie, in my opinion, in a slightly different plane - legal, educational, educational. My opinion is to allow the acquisition of other civilian weapons on terms, and everything will remain the same. Therefore, I see no reason to prohibit only for the sake of prohibition. In the shooting range, it is still more pleasant to shoot from your own, and not a rented GLOK.
    For sim, take my leave. (with respect to those present)
  37. smart ass
    smart ass 22 September 2013 12: 05
    -2
    I am against the sale of firearms to people, they wanted to have firefights on the roads ??? Our people are crazy
  38. Colonel
    Colonel 22 September 2013 17: 31
    +1
    Just by the way, this morning in Moscow
    ... three people got out of the BMW and brutally beat the driver and passenger of the Mazda with bits. Evgeny Kornyukhin, a 32-year-old resident of the Moscow Region, died of numerous fractures, including the base of the skull. His 33-year-old friend Roman Nikitin is in intensive care, doctors are fighting for his life.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 22 September 2013 19: 53
      -2
      They went out with bats, who prevented them from shooting from traumatic weapons for self-defense? If Yevgeny Kornyukhin did not buy a gas or traumatic pistol, why do you, Valery, think that he would buy a combat one? Finally, these scum could not come out with bats, but with trunks. You’re an adult, you don’t see weapons in pictures, do you really believe that arming the people of Russia will solve the problem of falling morale and be able to stop crime? Here the site is full of guys and uncles with inferiority complexes, who are afraid to make a remark to swearing youngsters, they dream of a pistol ... I swore to get involved in this srach about a weapon, the badge of a fly, could not resist. It seems that the roar of children in the toy store heard. Yes, the article was not written by the dunkoff, which once again shows what a fat jackpot the arms trade is. I mentioned the deputy Roman Khudyakov above, you do not be too lazy to think about his adventure with the so-called beating. Dagi rushed and spat at the reporters and the guards, already detained, but Roman was not torn like Tuzik a heating pad, bones were not broken, even hematomas were not observed. So, the head is in bandages and the concussion on duty. Not strange, but still so out of place. Nobody forbids you, like me, to love weapons, to be with them, but there is no need to help those who want to destabilize the situation in Russia, and additional profits from the sale of the same PM from Soviet warehouses, the import of heaps of foreign weapons. Think calmly, not like those for whom pistol is a prestigious whim or an attribute of a "free man". Good luck to you.
      1. Colonel
        Colonel 23 September 2013 13: 52
        0
        Sergey, thank you for your good wishes. Let me say that nowhere have I proposed "arming the people" (universal, I mean), but assumed some freedom in the use of weapons by normal, law-abiding citizens. I do not want to classify everyone as a reckless scumbag a priori. As for the aforementioned case, it is possible that E. Kornyukhin was a pacifist and got out of the car towards the scum with bats, not only without injury, but even without a mount. Okay, how many people have so many opinions. I'm not a fan of weapons, I have enough of them at work. As a souvenir I give an exclusive photo. I have 18 pieces left to clean. sad Sincerely ...
      2. intsurfer
        intsurfer 24 September 2013 21: 47
        +1
        on the same resource there is an article about Switzerland. Strange, but for some reason they did not shoot each other.

        Threat and at the same time let our country eliminate all nuclear weapons - are we not going to use them? Is not it?
  39. Leader
    Leader 23 September 2013 08: 59
    +2
    It is traumatism and other similar junk that enhances the scum's disregard for the laws, worsens the crime situation in the country. Not afraid of "rubber bands" !!! (about gas - I will not say anything at all). And do not carry nonsense - this is not a weapon, but a useless toy.
    Only the legalization of "short-handed" and the new law on self-defense will lead to a positive effect.
    The number of murders in Russia compared with the United States is twice as high (although in terms of population, we have half as much. That is, they kill 4 times more).
    What data, what facts are the arguments of opponents of weapons based on? Only on your delusional fabrications that "all the Russians are going ... oty" and will certainly "shoot each other"!
    You yourself are fucking ... us and liars! You don’t understand elementary things: impunity breeds further escalation of violence!
    Only the threat of punishment, up to death (instantly, in place! A real threat to the life of the criminal!), Will sharply reduce the crime rate!
    We have already seen other attempts to decriminalize the country - it only gets worse!
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 23 September 2013 09: 46
      -1
      Mr. Vozhik, on what facts are the data of the supporters of short-handedness based? We haven't figured out the traumatics, give me a combat weapon. The Fucking States started out as a country of bandits and hangmen, adventurers from all over the world, even though even there the problem of weapons restrictions arose. You can kill with anything you like with the same pillow, but there are few people willing to walk with it, give you pistols. You are not asking the authorities for order, competent work of the courts and police, raising the culture of the population, no, let the TV "House 2" play other vulgarities, but let there be weapons. You won't like medicine, would you like to do heart surgery yourself? You are not even able to discuss a normal topic, so you will shoot, cowboys. What did you see there? No one has ever tried to really decriminalize the situation in the country, because thieves and bandits came to power, and the next step in the criminalization of Russia is the smuggling of laws on military weapons. After the Second World War, there was a sea of ​​weapons, but the solution was not in additional arming of society, but in disarmament and the elimination of active crime. The same Zhukov put things in order in Odessa by shooting bandits, but this was done by specialists, on dark streets and wastelands, and not beer "supermen", many of whom cut off the army or did not see the mud with blood. What can I say to you, I've never been a sissy, and speaking of weapons, I understand what it is, unlike some dreamers.
  40. intsurfer
    intsurfer 24 September 2013 21: 42
    0
    >> Incompetence reigns supreme in all matters related to weapons

    It’s more correct to write like this - Incompetence rules the score in all matters. Dot. A friend told me about the United States - people don’t even lock at home, because the territory is under the protection of neighbors (special plates warn about this), which will shoot anyone who crawls into a strange house without demand.
  41. Sunscorpion
    Sunscorpion 25 September 2013 02: 42
    +1
    I agree with the author 100%. To understand that he is right, it is enough to put yourself in the shoes of a criminal. This is the same problem as the abolition of the death penalty, which, incidentally, is applied in the "most democratic" country in almost half of the states and they had international norms in mind. Nobody cancels drunk or idiots on the streets, or drunken idiots, but then why go to the "forest"? We must be afraid of wolves. By definition, it will not be possible to insure against all the dangers; the question, as usual, is in people. Anyone just knowing that there is a hypothetical probability of finding his "enemy" weapons, think a hundred times before digging. There are no rules without exceptions, but as the author said, they are within the statistical error. Weapons oblige and discipline any normal person. If you correctly establish the system of its issuance and examination, there will be no drunken "riders", no "give me a light", or "how long".
    1. intsurfer
      intsurfer 25 September 2013 06: 34
      0
      I recently read that in the USA even the blind (!) have the right to arms. But! Got it in a public place - get a bullet in the forehead. You don’t even need any permissions by and large - there must be a database by which the seller of any ormag can find out whether or not to sell weapons to a person (psycho, drug addict, crime). The seller sees only one word - it is possible or impossible. Any serious offense immediately switches the indicator to a negative position. And the economy will heal - production, trade, shooting galleries, shooting ranges and related products, there may be cafes with them.
  42. SlavaSSL
    SlavaSSL 25 September 2013 17: 47
    +1
    I am against the sale of firearms to people, they wanted there to be shootouts on the roads ??? Our people are crazy. Well, as long as they consider themselves inferior, everyone will think so. As about a year ago, in some liberal-democratic program it was said "he ( Russian people) drunkard, degraded, racially incomplete. And he is not supposed to have weapons. Well, if they are, well, like "the chosen people of the people" to defend, then yes, then you can be entrusted, temporarily. And at the same time, in absolutely "not drinking" republics of Moldova, Latvia, Estonia in civilian circulation, a huge number of weapons, both short-barreled and all kinds of long caramultuk smile . And nothing bad has happened, except to reduce street crime good .And in general, weapons are disciplined, I know by myself. And you stay away from all kinds of conflicts and do not drink often, because there is no desire to lose a license. I myself live in Estonia, a Russian, a citizen of the Russian Federation.
  43. Russkiy_Prapor
    Russkiy_Prapor 2 October 2013 13: 47
    0
    I have enough of a folding knife for self-defense on the street. Here is the approximate time that will be spent on the destruction of an armed bandit:
    1) An attacker armed with a knife - will be destroyed 2 seconds after his first attack. (He will die easier and faster than all the following)
    2) The attacking boxer, karate, wrestler, and so on (of any skill level) - will be destroyed 3-5 seconds after his first attack.
    3) The attacker is armed with a gun - will be destroyed in 5-10 seconds.
    Moreover, the time to destroy the enemy in paragraph 3 decreases in proportion to the distance to him.
    Conclusion: a trained soldier with a folding knife in his pocket poses a real threat to the street for hooligans and bandits. Learn, proven in more than one battle, the most effective army knife fight - do not waste time on any pseudo-masters.
    1. Svyatoslavovich
      Svyatoslavovich 18 October 2013 00: 48
      0
      And so many of you ... for a while?