Military Review

Weapon - to the people

209
Frosty winter began two thousandth. The third floor is neat and clean, similar to its sensitive silence on the hospital, the building of the FSB Detention Facility. Here, behind one of the doors upholstered in black leatherette and doors that are absolutely identical in appearance, in a small “twin” chamber with an unbreakable, lattice window, I happened to touch one stories, received subsequently terrible sequel.


During my stay in the former KGB internal prison, there were only a few of my cellmates and unwitting “comrades in misfortune”. And the terrorist Andrei Vyalov, a simple Russian guy from a distant Siberian city, who, for some unknown reason, converted to Islam and started hunting for representatives of the authorities in Dagestan. And completely frostbite gang leader Dmitry Yashchenko, who killed women in front of children, and in prison “suddenly” turned into an ardent Christian and a champion of moral values. Bandits and scammers, bribe takers and embezzlers who just did not pass before his eyes during this time. Perhaps in order to prevent the prisoners from rallying, or perhaps even with some secret goals, the administration often transferred inmates from one cell to another, breaking up established companies.

This time the Ingush of 30-35-years, Belan Aushev, turned out to be my neighbor. In the recent past, the police major and deputy head of the Nazran police department. Unlike the investigative prisons of the Ministry of Justice, the FSB officers didn’t really respect the principle of separation of former law enforcement officers and ordinary prisoners. This is understandable, in two dozen isolation cells there were no more than thirty people in any way, and they didn’t have much to choose from.

This major was sitting in a very interesting case. Along with the head of the armament depot of the North Caucasian Department of Internal Affairs in transport, he was accused of embezzling a whole heap from this warehouse weapons. Namely - 147 pistols and revolvers, automatic and almost 14 thousands of cartridges to them. According to investigators, this major simply went to the warehouse as if he was going home, each time carrying a few pistols at a time in a diplomat.

The former cop was “unaware”, and the entire accusation, strictly speaking, was based only on the testimony of a certain Kopchenko, who was just the head of that unfortunate warehouse. Representatives of the authorities and in prison often retain their privileges, without being subjected to the frills of the investigation, which, as usual, unleash the languages ​​of ordinary prisoners.

It should be noted that the former major was very serious about his defense, and with him he had an almost complete copy of the criminal case file. The story of Aushev, backed up with documents from voluminous folders, threw me, the army officer in the past, into shock. It turned out that a whole mountain of military weapons, the most innocent of which were pistols, were kept in a warehouse in the manner of vegetables - in bulk in boxes and practically without any control. But what touched me most was that during the long months of regular thefts and even after all the weapons had been stolen, checks and audits were regularly carried out at the armament depot. And on the relevant documents adorned the general signatures, confirming the presence of these weapons in stock. In general, the case was frankly dark, and I'm still not sure that the major really stole ALL of these trunks. We can assume that it simply blamed the whole mess and the shortage.
And then there was a verdict, according to which, without a doubt, the court dispatched the major to nine years, without having bothered to find out whose actual hands almost 150 were stolen from the warehouse of military pistols.

It was already in the order of time when something happened that should have happened a long time ago. One of the trunks stolen in distant 2000 was the Makarov pistol No. XI 3192 “spoke”. Another cop and also, by the way, the major - Denis Evsyukov staged a massacre in Moscow on the night of April 2009. He just walked and shot unarmed people, like in a dash. Three corpses and six wounded were the result of his accuracy. During the arrest, the major complained that he had not taken the machine gun with him. Like, it would be still more fun ...

Weapon - to the people

Try for a moment to imagine that the citizens of our country were not deprived of the power of nature and the very nature of a certain right to effective self-defense. What a scumbag Evsyukov, going out on the streets of Moscow on his night hunt, would have faced there with the most ordinary people, each of whom could easily have a trunk. What would be then, and how would this story end? Yes, he would simply be shot like a mad dog, and then they called the police and decorated the corpse. And yet, several lives would have been saved! Yes, and Evsyukov would go to this "feat", knowing how it could end for him? And immediately and without any options. It is doubtful if one considers that when asked why he didn’t shoot himself, the major smiling cheerfully while he was arrested answered: what am I, crazy ?!

So why, one wonders, the people at the expense of which, in fact, there is a state, deprived by this state of the right to defend themselves? Moreover, his organs and services are clearly incapable of it. Opponents of the legalization of weapons in the country stubbornly assert that the Russian people are not ready for such innovations and a surge of violence, which it allegedly entails. Is it so?
Let us turn to the experience of other countries and see what consequences were caused by changes in the legislation regulating the circulation of weapons.
In Australia, many types of firearms were banned in 1996. As a result, the number of armed robberies in eight years has increased by 59%, and in Sydney altogether by 160.

In Ireland, in 1974, mass seizures of firearms were carried out from the population - the number of murders immediately increased fivefold.
England - after the ban on short-arms in 1997, the number of violent crimes in just five years increased by 88%, armed robberies by 101%, rape by 105% and murders by 24%.

Indicative of the situation in the United States, where different states have different laws. In those of them where the concealed carrying of pistols and revolvers is permitted, the level of criminal manifestations is less by 22%, the murders by 33%, and the robberies by 37%. At the same time, in Washington, where the possession of short-barreled weapons was banned in 1976, crime has tripled in the meantime.

But the situation is already in the former Soviet republics.

In Moldova, citizens were allowed to carry pistols and revolvers - crime has fallen by half. In Estonia, after the legalization of weapons in 2001, street crime decreased by 80%, and the police staff was reduced by half. In Latvia and Lithuania, after the legislative permission of civilian weapons, a sharp decline in serious crimes was also noted.

But in these countries one people lives with us! Only a couple of decades ago he was called Soviet. Why would one part of him, on the occasion of appearing on the territory of present-day Russia, be considered so senseless and wild that it is impossible for her to entrust a simple pistol?

I note here that in the 2012 alone, 27991 people died on the roads of Russia, and 258618 was injured and crippled. But no one comes to mind to ban people from cars!

So it’s not the touching concern of the authorities about unreasonable citizens who, de, can fool each other. Not that weapons allegedly could fall into criminal hands - the percentage of criminal use of legal hunting weapons does not even make up a tenth of a percent.


There is no need for criminals to buy trunks in stores, leaving information in the MIA libraries, and he gets his weapon in a completely different way.

... The mid-nineties, a major regional city in southern Russia. I have an "arrow" assigned to the arms dealer. Going on him was easy. This man was well known to the cops and the brothers, deftly tacking between seemingly opposing interests. After a series of checks, which consisted of recommendations from mutual friends, we finally met in a quiet courtyard, almost in the very center of the city. An inconspicuous middle-aged man with a low voice and intelligent manners invited me into his car and pulled out a weighty bundle from under the seat. The subject of bargaining was the brand-new Heckler Koch, all shiny with oil and equipped with a long muffler pipe. Having screwed it to the barrel, the seller was as usual, as if it was happening in a usual dash, with a familiar movement he sent a cartridge and drove two bullets into an empty stall nearby. I settled in, throwing out a pack of bucks, put my gun in my belt and, saying goodbye, went into the darkness. Similar deals happen every day in your city.

But there are ways and simpler, not even requiring connections in the criminal environment. Among my cellmates, in the same FSB isolation ward, there was somehow a gunsmith from the already mentioned Yashchenko gang. He simply reworked the gas trunks in the battle, using the usual lathe. Everything is simple: a new barrel is machined on the machine, the grooves on which are manually punched with a slightly modified scan, the cartridge with an idle charge is supplied with a self-made bullet and as a result a combat pistol comes out quite to itself. Fourteen people were killed by the products of this "master". And no one could do anything with armed scumbags ...

No, not concern for the safety of citizens is the goal of banning the legalization of firearms in the country. The point here is something else. The meaning of this taboo with a truly samurai frankness was stated by the Japanese Shogun Toyotomi Hideoshi, who banned weapons to ordinary citizens in 1588: “People of different provinces are strictly forbidden to own swords, bows, spears, firearms and other weapons. Such possession of weapons makes it difficult to collect taxes and duties, and contributes to the rise of uprisings. ”

A few centuries later, Hitler wrote: "History teaches that all the conquerors who allowed their subordinate races to bear arms, this prepared their fall."

Yes, sometimes not only the invaders, but also their own rulers behave in their own country, like the real occupiers. And for obvious reasons, they are afraid of their own people to death. As in Russia, where the absolute majority was robbed by the government and its hangers-on, where it was created by dozens of generations over a thousand years, it suddenly turned out to be the property of several clans of former party apparatus, security officers and outright bandits. And where the ban on weapons, as litmus paper, unmistakably indicates the anti-popular regime.

To date in the search is 13684 Kalashnikov assault rifles, Makarov 22 119, 4089 TT pistols, Stechkina 268, 3634 revolver, a Mauser 504, 705 Brownings, 154 pistol "Beretta», 203 and 6114 Walter Parabellum.

This is without taking into account what the Interior Ministry is simply unknown, as well as without some “trifles”, such as machine guns, mortars and man-portable air defense systems - yes, and such weapons are also wanted!

And all this is definitely not in the hands of respectable citizens. So the ban on weapons is valid only for this part of the population. Let's try to dream a little. In the arsenals and in the warehouses of the Russian army is currently stored about 16 million units of various small arms. About 4, millions of them were going to be disposed of by 2015 year. Let us imagine that this weapon, lying dead in warehouses and requiring more and monetary investments in its disposal, will go on sale and be acquired by citizens upon presentation of at least the same driver's license. In addition to the obvious financial benefits to the state, we end up with a people who can stand up for themselves in any situation. And, of course, having the most direct influence on the policy of the government, which will simply be forced to listen to the opinions of its voters!

Is this how genuinely people's power begins?
Author:
Originator:
http://zavtra.ru/
209 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 26 September 2013 10: 03 New
    20
    SIGMUND FREUD:
    "Fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and mental development."
    1. il grand casino
      il grand casino 26 September 2013 15: 37 New
      27
      Yeah, yeah ... and craving for long trunks is a sign you know why)))
      P.S. Since childhood, I was taught how to handle weapons ... nothing bad happened, rather, on the contrary, I became more attentive. So I’m only for the people to have access to weapons ... they’ll only have to learn how to handle them from childhood and, first of all, grind that the ideal weapon is one that you never have to use.
      1. smile
        smile 26 September 2013 16: 39 New
        11
        il grand casino
        I do not agree with you, men ...
        1. Most people (mainly those for whom it is not an attribute of official duties) the very presence of a weapon provokes aggression, its use even there. where you can do without it. look, during any conflict situation, when the parties are threatened with a banal scuffle (or even not threatened, for example, if the armed man is obviously stronger) in the presence of a trunk, he instantly exposes himself .. always.
        2. Most people who are morally unprepared to shoot. exposing the barrel, it risks losing it and getting a bullet out of it. even if the opponent did not want to cause them significant harm. Willingness to justify the use of weapons, moreover, quickly a significant part of people will not develop any training.
        3. Some proponents of general arms like statistics ... for example, they say that they canceled somewhere, and there crime increased ... it’s so ... but what about the fact that crime is annually everywhere in Europe and the USA growing, I don’t know why? That is, is there a weapon, is it not there, in ten years the crime doubles anyway ...
        4. If a person like Evsyukov wants to go out to the store with a gun, he will come out anyway — the example of the United States with their mass shootings from legal weapons is already under the author’s nose ... what, did their weapon help the Americans? And those girls and boys. that they became victims of the bastard Evsyukov, in any case, they would hardly have been able to provide him with proper resistance.
        5. I don’t know why the author rang out on the bunk — I’m not interested, although the very fact that he managed to make a mistake in the KGB internal prison ten years after the abolition of the KGB undoubtedly causes respect for him ... :))) but I really don’t like his reasoning about how Power holds the people of Russia in slavery ... a kind of Robin Negud, who flaunts the fact that he’s buying the weapons of a killer and thoughtfully discussing the fate of the country ....
        Similar articles and their argumentation have long been worked out by the US arms lobby. where these battles have been going on for decades ... the impression is that the article is not about weapons, but about the bad power that keeps people in slavery ... the passage is about Major Aushev. who stole or didn’t stitch pistols, neither to the village nor to the city ... if you ask all the prisoners, they are all innocent lambs, they were set up, the cops and the authorities are guilty ... pah ...
        Yeah. I also forgot to add - unprepared people, in a stressful situation they risk violating the legislation governing the use of weapons. to exceed the limits of the necessary defense, or shoot innocent ... and eventually rattle to the bunkers adjacent to the author ...
        1. jasper
          jasper 26 September 2013 16: 48 New
          +6
          ie smile say that all Russian people are aggressive stupid people?
          1. smile
            smile 26 September 2013 17: 08 New
            +4
            jasper
            I am not saying this, it’s your personal fabrication ... you can highlight the reasons in more detail. on which you came to such a brilliant conclusion? :)))
            1. jasper
              jasper 26 September 2013 17: 58 New
              +6
              Most people (mainly those for whom it is not an attribute of official duties) the very presence of a weapon provokes aggression, its use even there. where you can do without it. look, during any conflict situation, when the parties face banal scuffle

              I just translated your opinion into Russian, nothing personal lol
              1. Oskar
                Oskar 26 September 2013 19: 11 New
                +8
                Dear Smile,
                I can find no less reasons against universal suffrage in any democracy and point it out, it’s a pity only ... Doesn’t it bother you that the majority of the electorate is not ready to be, just like it is not ready to carry weapons? And then it turns out ugly and strange: they are ready to vote and serve in the army, but they are not ready to have weapons ...
                1. smile
                  smile 26 September 2013 20: 00 New
                  0
                  Oskar
                  As I understand it. you don’t know that you can quite legitimately buy a rifled carbine? Or is he not a weapon? In light of this, your argument is slightly lame. is not it? :))) Okay. really let's stop bodyagi - I also argue on this occasion, just laziness. and so wrote enough ...
              2. smile
                smile 26 September 2013 19: 49 New
                +3
                jasper
                That means you don't know the language well. or are interested in an incorrect translation. I said. "most people" ... you see? Or do you suppose. that we do not belong to people?
                Or do you just not have such complicated words in your head? I repeat, I write in capital letters: MOST PEOPLE .. so clear? and Russian, and Japanese and Chinese - all of those. who does not live hunting. gathering or in the conditions of hostilities ... so it came to pass?

                You have quoted my quote. but not a single argument was given. please explain WHY you would like to add to my comment the term "Russians" that I have not used, and consider that in the usual features of the psychotype of any person I have outlined. not used to fighting and living in a civilized environment, there is something insulting.
                So, arguments, please. And look for them, please, with the same haste that you draw insulting conclusions from. You can also apologize - I'm not evil, and I will accept an apology. :)))
                1. jasper
                  jasper 29 September 2013 13: 35 New
                  0
                  I say, Russophobia to an extreme degree
        2. il grand casino
          il grand casino 26 September 2013 17: 20 New
          +5
          I agree with many of your arguments. For them, a bold plus. But they do not contradict mine ... or rather, it is my fault that I did not understand the idea very clearly. For example, I am categorically against carrying weapons ... Since this gives a "temptation" to use it ... I am only for accessing, storing and using it in strictly defined places (shooting ranges, etc.)
          1. smile
            smile 26 September 2013 17: 39 New
            +4
            il grand casino
            Well, I like it more ... but in this case, the Saiga allowed at home is perhaps a much more powerful argument for self-defense than any short-barrel ... +
            1. jasper
              jasper 26 September 2013 19: 44 New
              +6
              discharged? locked in a safe with 2 locks? and ammo for the third ??? yes, until you open it, a person will be sawed off with a blunt hacksaw crying
        3. IGS
          IGS 26 September 2013 17: 51 New
          15
          1. They take out weapons "not on business" now, realizing that the other does not have it, these are "show-off" and indicators of cowardice. But in a situation where such a d..k with the letter "m", who pulls the barrel for any reason, will know that he can get a bullet, as soon as he drew his weapon, he will think a hundred times.
          2. A moot point if your children are behind you.
          3. You yourself crossed out your entire comment
          That is, is there a weapon, is it not there, in ten years the crime doubles anyway ...

          Then why forbid? People want to own, let them do. Or arrange a referendum. Or are they still not mature enough to resolve these issues? Let the "smart" deputies decide for the "stupid" people, they know better ..
          4. Tell me why not ban kitchen knives? The most lethal weapon in everyday life. There were not only girls there, and he would have thought if he knew what he could get in return. The cost of armed guards is unbearable for small businesses, precisely because of the ban on weapons. Even when this one left .. I don’t remember his last name, he started firing from hunting barrels in the office because of "unhappy love", the guards rushed at him when he rebooted, and then at his own peril and risk. The result is known.
          5. It is not about the author, and not about the overthrow of anything, but about the assertion of his right to bear short-barreled weapons. Do not exaggerate.
          And add to your addition. Ban cars. The statistics of car accidents hits everything. And how it was possible to buy the rights it remained (as with weapons, by the way), but in this situation a law-abiding citizen can get the right to drive a car officially. With all due respect, but your reasoning does not hold water. hi
          1. smile
            smile 26 September 2013 20: 13 New
            0
            IGS
            I'm short, alright?
            Everything is debatable. I did not refute myself. In one state, crime rises by nine percent annually. In another too. One has weapons free. in the other, no, but everyone who needs to have a hunting rifle. Skirmishes are regular, tens of millions of stolen from private owners trunks (given 300 million gunshots at the hands of the population) and it’s easier to buy a gun there than in Chechnya. Youth gangs are armed almost without exception ... is the hint clear?
            Please do not ascribe to me all sorts of nonsense with the prohibitions of knives and cars — that is, do not exaggerate — I did not advocate a ban on carbines and hunting rifles.
            I respect you too, but I believe that you are misjudging the situation.
            1. IGS
              IGS 26 September 2013 23: 45 New
              +3
              Do not use weapons and carbines against the punks (unless stored in a machine).
        4. domokl
          domokl 26 September 2013 18: 13 New
          10
          Quote: smile
          I do not agree with you, men ...

          Quote: smile
          Most people (mainly those for whom it is not an attribute of official duties) the presence of weapons provokes aggression

          I do not agree. Aggression is just inherent when the enemy knows that he is unarmed against him. It is very problematic to shoot for defeat for an ordinary person. So the pistol will be more for scaring thugs.
          Quote: smile
          2. Most people who are morally unprepared to shoot. exposing the barrel, it risks losing it and getting a bullet from it

          That's right. That's why training and constant training in shooting ranges are needed. As is done in most countries. I brought the gun to the shooting range and shoot until you get bored. And in a special certificate the instructor will note how much and with what result.
          Quote: smile
          That is, is there a weapon, is it not there, in ten years the crime doubles anyway ...

          Knowing about the possibility of getting a bullet in the forehead, some will think whether to commit crimes or not. And now, crime, owning illegal weapons, can quite easily do anything ...
          Quote: smile
          . If a person like Evsyukov wants to go out with a gun to the store, he will come out anyway

          Again, right. Only the conclusion should be the opposite, rabid animals are being killed. And Yevsyukov was completely inadequate and could well get a real bullet in response.
          1. Gur
            Gur 26 September 2013 19: 00 New
            +3
            Let's go back to Yevsyukov. I’m walking around the store. I hear shooting behind the shelves with retuses. I grab my barrel. I’m preparing for self-defense. I see a bunch of a corpse of a man in uniform and another man, for example, who decided to kill a mad dog, but I didn’t see the picture and naturally shoot a man out of shape ad infinitum and not one consequence of not scattering what was really so that the police must decide and figure out who the mad dog is
          2. smile
            smile 26 September 2013 20: 24 New
            0
            domokl
            Inexperienced man with a barrel in his pocket. gains unreasonable confidence in its invulnerability and makes conflict easier — even where it can be avoided. Even an automatic machine hanging on the DPSnik’s shoulder causes more nervous and reflex aggressive behavior of the driver, this is a real test of real research. I got acquainted quite a long time ago, but I remembered it for sure. You are right in many respects, but, in my opinion, still do not take into account something.
            By the way, the presence of weapons by the Americans for some reason does not impede the regular mass shooting of people in their offices ... I have never heard. for some maniac to be shot by ordinary people, usually a thousand policemen do it. :)))
            1. domokl
              domokl 26 September 2013 20: 40 New
              +4
              Quote: smile
              Inexperienced man with a barrel in his pocket. gains unreasonable confidence

              Well, who told you this? Even a soldier in a war cannot immediately use a weapon against an enemy. Where does this come from a simple layman. And again you confuse the availability of weapons and their carrying.
              And nowadays, many people have pistols officially. I'm not talking about the security forces or the military, I'm talking about deputies, for example ... Do they use it often? Why can I have hunting weapons, can have traumatism, but I can’t have a short barrel? Coarse shot or buckshot will be much more dangerous than some kind of revolver.
              1. smile
                smile 26 September 2013 22: 34 New
                +1
                domokl
                I didn’t come up with this - why are these my personal observations since when we had a terrible weapon, a gas spray ... :))) and then, gas pieces of iron and. finally. injuries ... human behavior. possessing them has changed dramatically ... I’ve been carrying weapons with you since I was twelve ... but personally, I never lugged with any weapons ... and I absolutely absolutely responsibly declare that if I always had a trunk with three or four people it wasn’t ... and on absolutely legal grounds ... I wouldn’t violate the laws of the Russian Federation ... I had to solve the problems like that ... and you know, I don’t regret that I don’t have extra corpses, though not good, but people. ..
                As for wearing ... tell me, why do I need a short barrel if it cannot be worn? If he will be at home. the carabiner is always better and more effective ...
                If this is a fundamental issue of discrimination for you, then your reasoning is clear and adequate ... but I personally need to ... if they even hang around with machine guns ... I would definitely not go around constantly even with a half-kilogram piece of iron ... moreover, in a harness ... of course, if the short-barrel wouldn’t go to the people ... if they had allowed it, you would have to buy it, you never know whether the next brawler is armed, or if the barrel will take out some kind of bucket to insanity a citizen on a bench ..... you see, the proliferation of weapons - as a self-sustaining chain reaction - one provokes the other ...
                1. domokl
                  domokl 27 September 2013 05: 49 New
                  +4
                  Quote: smile
                  ..I definitely wouldn’t be walking constantly even with a half-kilogram piece of iron ... and even in a harness ..

                  Here ... The one who wore this understands. But now you went to rest in the forest, to the country, to the lake, or at least somewhere and what? You are practically defenseless.
                  The same situation in long-distance trips. We moved to another region and all the same you are a tidbit for local bullies. Not many of us can effectively resist 4-5 scumbags. And there are many such situations.
          3. Normal
            Normal 26 September 2013 21: 53 New
            +2
            Quote: domokl
            I do not agree ....
            Right.....

            This is the number .... Alexander, are you this?
            I am preparing arguments for one of the main opponents of the short-barrels on the domokla website, and here ....
            What happened, Alexander? Where does such a change of outlook come from?
            1. smile
              smile 26 September 2013 22: 40 New
              0
              Normal
              Oh, damn it, Domocles turns out to be my former like-minded person? Oh, I lost such a powerful ally ... dassssad :)))) admit, you (militarists) probably tortured him? :))) This is what happens ... and I’m soon butt on the head? ... no-no-no, I strongly disagree! :)))
              1. Normal
                Normal 26 September 2013 23: 07 New
                +3
                Quote: smile
                admit, you (militarists) probably tortured him?

                Come on, I'm shocked myself belay We (the militarists) are out of business ...
                Quote: smile
                This is what happens ... and I’m soon butt on the head? ... no-no-no, I strongly disagree!

                Well, so they say to you; a short barrel is needed! laughing Then his disagreement will be something to reinforce wink
                1. Normal
                  Normal 26 September 2013 23: 16 New
                  +3
                  Quote: smile
                  By the way, the presence of weapons by the Americans for some reason does not impede the regular mass shooting of people in their offices ... I have never heard. for some maniac to be shot by ordinary people, usually a thousand policemen do it. :)))

                  In! Finally found !:
                  vadimN RU December 18, 2012 11:03 ↑

                  Cases where mass murderers were stopped by armed citizens

                  - Shooting at Pearl School. Mississippi was stopped by Deputy Director Joel Mairik with an 45 Colt
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

                  - Two armed students stopped the shooter at the Appalachian Law School.
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_S...of_Law_shooting

                  - The robber plans to shoot everyone in the store in Muskegon, pcs. Michigan, and enough money and jewelry to satisfy the "gnawing cocaine hunger" crumbled when one of the alleged victims began to shoot back.
                  http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citiz...amp;st=&ps=

                  - The shooting at Colorado Springs Church was stopped when the shooter shot one of the believers present, the holder of a license for the hidden carrying of weapons.http: //blutube.policeone.com/police-traini...hurch-rouble/

                  - The shooting in the gun shop in Santa Clara in the 1999 year was stopped by an armed citizen after the shooter announced that he intended to kill everyone. Police found a list of intended victims in his car. In the end, only the shooter himself, Richard Gable Stevens, was shot dead.
                  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2911219/posts

                  - In December of the 1991 year in Aniston, pcs. Alabama, the holder of a license to conceal the carrying of weapons [a restaurant visitor] stopped armed robbers who drove workers and visitors, including his wife, into the refrigerator [refrigerator room]. He shot both robbers, killing one of them.
                  http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information...tem.asp?ID=1446

                  - July 13 2009, Golden Food Market, pcs. Virginia: the shooter tried to shoot several people, was stopped by an armed civilian, a holder of a license for hidden wearing.
                  http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/146...lives-takes-few

                  - in Earley, pc. Texas, an armed citizen, Vic Stacy, fired and stopped a madman who had just killed two neighbors and shot a police rifle.
                  http://www.ktxs.com/news/RV-PARK-KILLINGS-...2o/-/index.html

                  - The peculiarity of mass killings that were stopped by the citizens themselves is that they do not have time to become massacres.
                  1. smile
                    smile 26 September 2013 23: 41 New
                    +2
                    Normal
                    All-all-all ... stammered ... I raise my paws ... but Baba Yaka is still against it ... not so long ago, one visitor to the site, boasting that she was surrounding the house with a fence, dreamed of not setting up a firing point for her with a machine gun ... yeah, if they start selling weapons, as in Lithuania, I’ll surround my site with a minefield ... I’ll need to somehow defend myself from the militarists :)))
                2. smile
                  smile 26 September 2013 23: 35 New
                  +1
                  Normal
                  You caught me ... zaraza :))) Everything, from tomorrow I will start sharpening staghorn and I will walk in harness and with a kilogram piece of iron ... it is necessary from you, militarists, to defend somehow .... :)))
                  1. Normal
                    Normal 26 September 2013 23: 43 New
                    +2
                    Quote: smile
                    I’ll be walking in a harness and with a kilogram piece of iron ... it’s necessary for you, the militarists, to defend somehow .... :)))

                    No one promised it would be easy ...
                    I walk. As the injury was allowed, I always wear it without taking it off. At work - service PM, then IL.
                    How are the samurai doing? "For a sword to be useful once, you have to wear it all your life."
                    Weapons are an attribute of a free person. yes hi
                    1. chehywed
                      chehywed 27 September 2013 00: 41 New
                      0
                      Quote: Normal
                      How are the samurai?
                      1. Normal
                        Normal 27 September 2013 06: 55 New
                        0
                        chehywed

                        Exactly what is just like ....
                    2. Ruslan67
                      Ruslan67 27 September 2013 02: 35 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Normal
                      I walk. As the injury was allowed, I always wear it without taking it off.

                      Volodya! and in the toilet too belay ? wassat
                      Quote: Normal
                      At work - service PM, then IL.

                      They haven’t bored you yet? As if I were transferred from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to private security, I began to take the barrel out of the safe exactly twice a year: the first at the time of passing the test, the second at the annual check and everything And Saiga -410 lies at home and that’s enough
                      1. Normal
                        Normal 27 September 2013 06: 52 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Ruslan67
                        Volodya! and in the toilet too

                        No, there I "shoot" from other "trunks"
                        Quote: Ruslan67
                        And at home lies Saiga -410 and this is enough

                        And Saiga is a 410 parody of a weapon, especially since "lies" tongue She was generally invented so that the Chopovites would not shoot anyone
                      2. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 27 September 2013 17: 01 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Normal
                        And Saiga is a 410 parody of a weapon, especially since "lies"

                        Suggest wearing under a cloak? what So I have a Cossack version with optics Longish will be request By the way, it hits 200 meters, but there is already the accuracy of the wrong
                        Quote: Normal
                        She was generally invented so that the Chopovites would not shoot anyone

                        Once I saw with a Chopovets in the late 90s and even with some collectors. We had 20 calibers in the office
            2. domokl
              domokl 27 September 2013 05: 58 New
              +1
              Quote: smile
              ) Confess, you (militarists) probably tortured him?

              They tried .. there was a thing .. but for a long time. But you didn’t get an ally laughing I am this, like him, tolera laughing I’m trying to reconcile you. Buy a trunk (anyway there’s nowhere to put them in the country) and sit with him at home laughing
              And to be honest, over the past time I did some polls and found out a terrible secret, for the most part young and old people are going to buy weapons. And such a sale can be perfectly clamped, first due to not serving in the army, second because of health. the most aggressive part of the supporters here will buy no more than 10-15 percent. Because of laziness and unwillingness to go through the whole process of obtaining permission ...
          4. domokl
            domokl 27 September 2013 05: 52 New
            +1
            Quote: Normal
            What happened, Alexander? Where does such a change of outlook come from?

            This is not a change of mind. repeat This is an attempt to shift the conversation from carrying weapons to possession permits. We are talking about carrying them all the time. And I am a principled opponent of just that. But possession. Half of us have weapons. And not just one barrel. However, we do not shoot and do not carry it outdoors.
      2. Gur
        Gur 26 September 2013 18: 53 New
        +2
        Guys you can carry weapons into the house categorically; no, I won’t argue for a long time; Moscow traffic jams are solved every day and traumatic and bats are used; believe me, if they had a barrel at that moment and it went into use I would even use a guy to pull a sword from the trunk Are you suggesting that we wet each other because of traffic, because you don’t respect me the absurdity. Although I myself refused to have a trunk like any normal man, I’ll understand that we don’t emphasize our low cultural level and weapons open spaces of the country is not necessary. Of course, it’s not all crazy-headed but even if we save one another’s life from prison, it’s better than nervous breakdowns in people with weapons, they would grumble in the face and people break it up, get up at one I got another bruise for 5 days, and if only one had grief in the family and another had grief in the family, and because of what, and because of the void.
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 26 September 2013 18: 58 New
          +3
          .............
      3. Normal
        Normal 26 September 2013 19: 03 New
        +7
        Eh, smile ... You contradict yourself (nothing like "you"?)
        Quote: smile
        1. Most people (mainly those for whom it is not an attribute of official duties) the very presence of weapons provokes aggression

        And why? Is it because there is no culture of handling weapons that without weapons will never appear? For those who have weapons by occupation, this culture is, at the very least, inculcated. But to contrast these groups of people is not correct. Does Yevsyukov’s example say nothing?
        Quote: smile
        look, during any conflict situation, when the parties are threatened with a banal scuffle (or even not threatened, for example, if the armed man is obviously stronger) in the presence of a trunk, he instantly exposes himself .. always.

        Not true, not always. Well, if it's certainly not the Caucasus.
        Quote: smile
        2. Most people who are morally unprepared to shoot. exposing the barrel, it risks losing it and getting a bullet out of it. even if the opponent did not want to cause them significant harm.

        Well, they are not ready to shoot, but "it is always exposed". Straight pistol exhibitionism of some kind.
        Quote: smile
        Willingness to justify the use of weapons, moreover, quickly a significant part of people will not develop any training.

        Again not true. As any soldier can parachute into the Airborne Forces, as almost any person can drive a car, so you can develop the skill of using weapons. There is nothing supernatural in this.
        Quote: smile
        4. If a person like Evsyukov wants to go out to the store with a gun, he will come out anyway — the example of the United States with their mass shootings from legal weapons is already under the author’s nose ... what, did their weapon help the Americans?

        The example of the United States suggests just the opposite. They shoot there in schools, cinemas and supermarkets. That is, in "weapon-free zones", and after each such shooting, laws are passed prohibiting the introduction of such zones (schools are an exception, but there are also arguments for weapons) From those places where there is no ban on weapons, completely different news comes. Not about mass executions, but about the fact that after the very first shots the criminal was shot or wounded (rendered harmless) by the nearest armed citizen. But it is not customary for us to publish such news. Once, while discussing an article on a similar topic, one of the commentators laid out a whole list of such examples.
        1. smile
          smile 26 September 2013 20: 47 New
          +1
          Normal
          Of course, come on you.
          Yes, the fact of the matter is that often (if this is not a robbery) people. cursing even because of the parking space, traumatized trunks are immediately pulled and begin to waving them in front of each other, unless this provokes aggression. Even he saw such a circus ... of course, he climbed in ... :))) I almost caught a bullet, they were on the verge of affect, both :))) but calmly verbally convinced the roosters that it’s better not to do nonsense ... and if it were normal guns? I wouldn’t go to them - I would get mine (I would buy, if the general armament began) and in control of them I would call the cops ... and if one slammed the other, what, shoot him? and then what-a shootout and two corpses? and everything from scratch .... well, it in FIG, such happiness ... Well, then I wrote a complete lie ... :))) okay. I will not argue, not fundamentally ... :)))) your arguments are clear to me. They are not without justification. but mine too. I suppose I didn’t write from scratch — and I suppose you understand that too. as well as the fact that I do not pretend to be the genius of my fabrications :))) Goodbye.
          1. revnagan
            revnagan 27 September 2013 11: 12 New
            0
            Quote: smile
            and if one slammed the other, what, shoot him? and then what-a shootout and two corpses?

            Nothing to be done, natural selection laughing
      4. Andrey57
        Andrey57 26 September 2013 21: 10 New
        +5
        Yes Yes ! After the legalization of weapons for the population, the "stupid Moldovans" did not shoot each other, and the number of grave crimes fell sharply, the "inhibitory Estonians" also sharply dropped grave crimes, and only the "unintelligent Russians" are absolutely incapable of anything adequate, having legal weapons in the form of pistols, for example! All your arguments are sucked from the finger and do not correspond to anything in the post-Soviet space, arguments about mattress mats, sorry, do not roll at all hi
        1. zennon
          zennon 26 September 2013 21: 40 New
          +1
          and only "foolish Russians" are absolutely incapable of anything adequate

          Even cooler! A guy at the age of 18 is called for an urgent one. And then in the blink of an eye he becomes smart and adequate! They are handed AK. Further more! An order was issued to demobilize, and he again instantly turns into an "unintentional inadequate" NOW You can’t carry a weapon! Have you seen a big fucking hat ... But, according to opponents of the legalization of the short barrel, this is what happens.
          1. Normal
            Normal 26 September 2013 23: 33 New
            +3
            Quote: zennon
            Even cooler! A guy at the age of 18 is called up for an urgent one. And then in the blink of an eye he becomes intelligent and adequate! They are handed AK. Further more! An order was issued to demobilize, and he again instantly turns into an "unintentional inadequate", who NOW can not carry weapons !


            It was even cooler! Really. Demobilized in the spring of 85th. The anti-alcohol decree came into force in the store, where they sold me muttering of local production almost from the age of 12, in response to the "Bottle of Wheat", please ... "I hear" And you, boy, are 21 years old ? "
            Then I "exploded". So I could have a machine gun. To kill people (in accordance with the charter of the guard service) is generally a duty. To die for the international debt has already been enough for years, but to buy vodka is not yet mature enough!
            In general .... they sold me vodka .... laughing
            1. Ruslan67
              Ruslan67 27 September 2013 02: 42 New
              +2
              Quote: Normal
              In general .... they sold me vodka ...

              It was similar request Arriving home from the funny troops at 87, I ran into the same question in a store where they sold me vodka before the army. First they dragged them away and sold wassat and the next time they apologized when there were few people, But for me it was the first call regarding perestroika and humpbacked
        2. smile
          smile 26 September 2013 23: 13 New
          0
          Andrey57
          So.
          1. please. do not give derogatory characteristics to the indicated nationalities, it humiliates you ... especially since the characteristics are absolutely wrong - and the Moldavians are no less reasonable than we are, and Estonians are more agile than you think.
          2. In Lithuania, buying a short barrel is quite simple ... a passport and one visit to the police .... do you know how many shops? I know four (in my opinion, no more) -in Klaipeda, Šiauliai and Vilnius, Kaunas ... and it seems that the Klaipeda store is closing .. PM cost a little more than 4 thousand last year with our money, you know, sale old stocks, and even the Russian barrel, it’s anti-advertising for them ... no, I’m not an apologist for Makarov, but given how in the late nineties the Lithuanians tried to replace Kalash’s army with M-15 rifles, which were lying around in the warehouses of the Americans ... and bought them at a price. comparable to the new Kalash .... :)))
          3. Weapons are bought very little, crime, in principle, has not been affected in any direction, statistics are few ... but scandals involving legal trunks, judging by the press, are no less frequent than scandals with injuries ... only rumps are more often obtained ... only they live there 2 million 400 thousand (600 thousand guest workers), and we have almost 150 million ... draw conclusions ... imagine this on a sassov scale, especially if the short barrel is affordable to all comers ... or do you deny the poor the right to self-defense? :)))
      5. bif
        bif 26 September 2013 23: 28 New
        +3
        Quote: smile
        What about the fact that crime is growing every year in Europe and the USA, I don’t know why? That is, is there a weapon, is it not there, in ten years the crime doubles anyway ...

        Crime is growing where social decline goes.
        Quote: smile
        And those girls and boys. that they became victims of the bastard Evsyukov, in any case, they would hardly have been able to show him proper resistance.

        not the fact that among them there would be no prepared and capable of ridding society of an abscess called Evsyukov.
        Quote: smile
        - untrained people, in a stressful situation, risk violating the law

        so, for this, there are bureaucratic delays with the collection of certificates ... and, of course, the archery and other training grounds and shooting ranges.
        The arms lobby has nothing to do with it, especially in the Russian Federation. Many are afraid of what will happen in the states when they just introduced permission (you can read it yourself) - for several years there has been almost the shooting of criminals-robbers-rapists, the most zealous aggressors (as you have in paragraph 1) .. and after that people trust each other more, less criminality has become, because know that punishment is inevitable ... the presence of weapons brings up responsibility and restraint in a person ...
        your arguments are betrayed by a person who 1. who did not hold a weapon in his hands and did not shoot in special-equipped institutions or while hunting, and 2. who did not meet with an armed criminal and did not face the condescension of the Ministry of Internal Affairs or the law towards such "persons".
        1. smile
          smile 27 September 2013 01: 54 New
          0
          bif
          I mind briefly
          In the United States, they did not introduce a permit to carry weapons .. there was no period of shooting offenders, since from the moment future Americans got to the continent there were introduced only prohibitions-prohibitions on explosive bullets :))) prohibitions on automatic weapons, prohibitions on carrying, prohibitions on short-barrels. .... and they shot each other at the beginning of the 20th century with such zeal that you can’t equate them to the DB (and at the end of the 19th century there is no analogue to their banditry ... anywhere ...) ... we weren’t like that then ... and after the civil war it wasn’t all the same ..... by the way, please take into account that there were so many rifles before Khrushchev that our army could be armed with a small European state ... Evil Stalin was not against ..... good Khrushchev did not like ...
          such things ... You are clearly mistaken ...
          1. Ruslan67
            Ruslan67 27 September 2013 02: 46 New
            +2
            Quote: smile
            Evil Stalin was not against ..... good Khrushchev did not like ...

            Under the evil Stalin, everyone who had the right to weapons could shoot a criminal on the spot without idiotic shots in the air am and nothing but gratitude with the introduction of him threatened cannibalism however wassat
      6. revnagan
        revnagan 27 September 2013 11: 01 New
        +2
        Quote: smile
        . Most people (mainly those for whom it is not an attribute of official duties) the presence of weapons provokes aggression

        Well, you know, in order to assert this, you first need to arm this very majority. And if you mean the current situation, then the overwhelming majority of armed people sincerely believe in their exclusivity. They can, cattle, cannot. After all, this is not an armed PEOPLE, but traders, nouveau riches and majors with deputies. When their "exclusiveness" in this matter is destroyed, they will be forced to "be quieter." The bullet from the "Nagan" hits just as painfully as from the "Glock".
        Quote: smile
        Most people are morally unprepared to shoot. exposing the barrel, it risks losing it and getting a bullet out of it.

        Well, again, you are signing for the majority, having no facts. The question is that when a person demonstrates a weapon, he ALREADY USES it. Is there enough spirit to shoot? It’s not always necessary to shoot. But of course, you need to work with people and with the legislative base so that the person who shot the gopnik is not accused of exceeding self-defense. This is the hitch. Well, no one wants to take responsibility for the newly adopted law. And no one wants to develop the law itself.
        Quote: smile
        That is, is there a weapon, is it not there, in ten years the crime doubles anyway ...

        Question: what kind of crime? Petty theft? That is, when you talk about the "majority", you want to believe your opinion categorically, but the official statistics about the decrease in the number of GRAVE crimes where weapons are allowed are not?
        Quote: smile
        If a person like Evsyukov wants to go out with a gun to the store, he will go out anyway, the example of the United States with their mass executions from legal weapons is already under the author’s nose ... what, did their weapon help the Americans?

        Mass shootings in the States (and other states) take place in ZONES FREE OF WEAPON-KINDERGARTEN, SCHOOL, STUD.GORODKI, and other places where law-abiding citizens are prohibited from carrying weapons. The criminal goes there as if he were hunting in a nature reserve. Warranty-no one will fight back! So the mass shootings are on the conscience of the prohibitions of weapons.
        Under item 5, there are no questions
    2. jasper
      jasper 26 September 2013 16: 47 New
      10
      you study on the law. so you need to learn weapons
      1. smile
        smile 26 September 2013 17: 12 New
        +1
        jasper
        No training will prepare an ordinary layman to act adequately, within the law, and most importantly, quickly enough, as required by the situation. Exceptions are units. Here, experience is much more important. See how people behave in the first battle (and for some this remains forever) - do they all behave appropriately?
        1. IGS
          IGS 26 September 2013 17: 58 New
          +8
          Your logic is clear to me and I agree with you. But you take different situations. The situation of "combat aggression" and the situation of "aggressive defense". These are two different things. And it's good that there is no such experience, and the line in consciousness has not been crossed, this is the best safeguard against unauthorized use of weapons. But, as the army proverb says, "sometimes they become a hero, because it is much more dangerous to be a coward." The minus is not mine, because I understand your comment. By the way, according to research, psychologically only 4% (according to other sources 6%) of servicemen are ready to "adequately kill". And quite a lot of attention has been and is being paid by the same mattress toppers to increase this figure in one way or another. And based on this and your commentary, weapons should be taken away from 94-96% of servicemen.
          1. smile
            smile 26 September 2013 18: 08 New
            +2
            IGS
            Well, I agree with you. But this "fuse" ... look, the overwhelming majority of cases of fire contacts with the use of pistols and revolvers occurs at a distance of 5-7 meters and is rather short-lived. For the use of a pistol for, for example, a robbery, God forbid, leaves the victim a couple of seconds. I suppose. that a person who is not ready for an attack, at best, will have time to get the barrel ... while he is trying to assess the situation and make a difficult decision, to shoot, not to shoot, he will get in the head, or the weapon will change its owner ... and the criminal, having seen the barrel being pulled out, will act precisely for the slaughter, even if he did not intend to do so ... of course there will be exceptions, but I am convinced that there are exceptions ...
            1. IGS
              IGS 26 September 2013 18: 19 New
              +2
              I dare to disappoint you, both the victim and the perpetrator are in a stressful situation. I will not say for sure now, but in about 90% of cases, the attack stops after "the discovery of the presence of an equal or superior force on the part of the victim", of course, this does not mean that the attacker is a "commando". And yet, remember the use of trauma, by the way, its excessive use is connected precisely with its "non-lethality", as far as I know, traumas have never been in the hands of the opposing side (and if there were cases, then exactly a few).
              1. Fregate
                Fregate 26 September 2013 18: 58 New
                +5
                I agree with you IGS, you can even consider the example of countries. Everyone has an army (weapon). The "offender" lives overseas and who does not have an army (weapons) capable of fighting back "offends". And where is international law (in our case, our local laws), and no where, you can go to the toilet with them. Nobody and nothing will protect you as you are yourself, just with a weapon it will be easier to do. Many attacks are carried out with the use of weapons and bandits get it somewhere, although it is prohibited in our country, so why cannot citizens have weapons for defense?
              2. smile
                smile 26 September 2013 20: 59 New
                -1
                IGS
                There were such cases - there were -that, in my opinion, at the weekend in the center of St. Petersburg there was a shootout. And the rest, I can’t admit that you are right ... but I consider my arguments to be true. In the end, if you add up the pros and cons, I’m still against. I hope you won’t swear at me for this? :)))
                1. IGS
                  IGS 26 September 2013 23: 26 New
                  +2
                  No))) That's why we are discussing this. Each has its own arguments)) and very significant. But I’ll snag it, (I wanted to put an emoticon, but not the case), we cut a guy in the evening, walked from work. Thank God brought to the hospital on time found. This punks were also found, earcaps ... In your position there are also enough justifications, although you did not bring them. For example, a person who draws a weapon needs to be aware that he can immediately get a bullet on this action, even if he did not want to use it. A person with a weapon is the number one target for another person with a weapon. The conflict will move to another level. Some people, for example, who have crossed the line (and not only them), about whom we wrote, have an acquired reaction to this action, maybe they will shoot into the air ... but they will miss.
                  1. IGS
                    IGS 26 September 2013 23: 50 New
                    +1
                    But no, they mentioned this argument. Then I read it.
                  2. smile
                    smile 27 September 2013 00: 06 New
                    0
                    IGS
                    Yes, a sad situation ... I’ll tell you the response to a sad situation ... in 96 I drank heavily with a Cuban colleague (I still remember the full name - Juan Francisco ... ... I won’t tell further :))) he dragged me to the bar Aralia (Kaliningrad city center) where then his compatriots and various blacks, Algerians gathered. the Mongols studying in our universities ... went out to breathe, it was smoky ... the company got in touch with us ... a lot ... in the process of scandal they laid bare two trunks ... Huyang reacted adequately-a minute and lay on the ground for 6-8 man ... I didn’t see this either before or after ... the last one completely stung the descent pneumatics turned out to be ... I confess, I almost didn’t participate ... naturally, they called cops ... then for four hours we were directly bullets were taken out from the BSMP and from Khuyan’s face ... the aggressors turned out to be employees of one of the Kailingrad police departments ... the case was released on the brakes of mutual interest ... the urrods were fired ... and now imagine they have weapons or we have .. .personally, I would shoot everyone who saw the barrel in my hands .. without any warnings. and maybe not only them, I was really tipsy ... and maybe I would go to prison ... the result is a bunch of corpses. I'm in a coffin or in the prison ... maybe without a weapon it's still easier, huh?
                    1. IGS
                      IGS 27 September 2013 02: 56 New
                      +2
                      I don’t know, personally in my house there are no and will not be weapons. Not because I am a pacifist (although I don’t promise). I just really don't like him. But I would not take away the right to protection from citizens. And drunken antics and scumbags ... were, are and will be. How many gunshots do organ workers have ... and this is only registered. I don’t know, they told me, the Chechens, if they sorted out relations between themselves, removed all weapons from themselves so as not to kill in the heat ... blood feud, however. There will probably be in the beginning some problems related to the culture of gun ownership, but do not humiliate our people and put them below other nationalities in terms of culture and sense of responsibility. But I would forbid injuries, in any case.
              3. smile
                smile 26 September 2013 23: 24 New
                0
                IGS
                Damn ... regardless of the text, with which I largely agree, I beg you, do not flirt from scratch .... I did not deserve from you the appeal "I dare to disappoint you" ... :))) You don't want me for anything, I don't seem to give you a reason, the topic is not fundamental .. why joke? :))) Guys. let's live together, eh?
                In terms of text, everything is correct, but the assessment, basically, takes place in advance ... attacks usually last seconds ... (I do not mean with the subsequent ritual robbery of the vanquished) the victim simply will not have time ... here is Domocles on this subject spoke more convincingly ... :)))
                1. IGS
                  IGS 26 September 2013 23: 44 New
                  +2
                  I apologize if I hit this. hi
                  1. smile
                    smile 27 September 2013 02: 01 New
                    +1
                    IGS
                    Accepted. I respect you.
            2. Misantrop
              Misantrop 26 September 2013 18: 49 New
              +5
              Quote: smile
              the vast majority of cases of fire contact with the use of pistols and revolvers occurs at a distance of 5-7 meters and is very transient. For the use of a pistol in, for example, a robbery, God forbid the victim, if a couple of seconds.
              Only now unarmed passers-by will rush to the sides so as not to fall under fire. And if the weapon is allowed, the robber is much more likely to get his bullet not from the one he was going to rob (and this punks are not bad natural psychologists, they don’t risk attacking a confident person), but from a passerby who saw the lawlessness . What most often happens in countries where the trunk and its use are permitted
              1. Lech from ZATULINKI
                Lech from ZATULINKI 26 September 2013 18: 52 New
                +4
                Yes it is so I have some videos on this subject.
                How quickly the behavior of the criminal changes when bullets whistle near his ears, the hare can envy the speed of running.
              2. smile
                smile 26 September 2013 21: 07 New
                0
                Misantrop
                Yes. here you are right ... but imagine a situation when there are not thousands of stolen trunks walking around the country, but millions, as in the USA (there are legal-three hundred million), I strongly doubt that this increases the safety of the population ...
                1. IGS
                  IGS 26 September 2013 23: 40 New
                  +3
                  Do not hesitate, this side of the coin (permission to own) has other advantages. For example, do you know that a person with an official weapon becomes more patriotic? He has a growing sense of responsibility towards society. I am not talking about people with mental disabilities. The only thing that will increase is injuries, I wrote about this below in the thread.
              3. rereture
                rereture 26 September 2013 23: 37 New
                0
                Dear Misantrop, even in the United States, gun owners are told: "if people with weapons are running, then it means either the police or the criminals who are being chased by the police, do not try to stop them" and if a shootout and a passer-by accidentally shoot the victim ...
            3. Lech from ZATULINKI
              Lech from ZATULINKI 26 September 2013 18: 54 New
              +1
              Absolutely not a fact.
        2. jasper
          jasper 26 September 2013 17: 59 New
          +5
          Ie soldiers in the army, before it were not ordinary people? and preparation didn’t help them?
          or I'm stupid, or you are not frank to say the least tongue
          1. smile
            smile 26 September 2013 21: 14 New
            0
            jasper
            The soldier is saved by clear commands, the fact that he is not alone, tries to act like everyone else ... if there is no clear command and he is alone, the behavior, with rare exceptions, is completely irrational.
            And please, do not try to scandal with me - this is not the question on which I am ready to scandal, but if you force me, I will answer ... I don’t want to do this, and it will be unpleasant for you ... take a word. :)))
        3. ilya63
          ilya63 26 September 2013 18: 40 New
          -1
          and you yourself were a wise guy in a real battle ?, if so, where, when and against whom?
          1. smile
            smile 26 September 2013 21: 32 New
            +2
            ilya63

            Learn to behave, ...... Why so much tear, ........ :))) Calm down, I'm writing right from the kindergarten for abandoned children ... :))) ...... ... Where to go, I hope, remember? ... Well, go ahead. towards the dawn! ...
            You should be very grateful to the moderators, the stick and the kicks who taught me during the presence on my favorite site of such ornateness, and the courteous treatment of people like you .... krrrassssavtsami .. well go ... I let you go ... :)))
      2. Gur
        Gur 26 September 2013 19: 01 New
        0
        Remind how many rights are bought per day in Russia, dear
    3. domokl
      domokl 26 September 2013 18: 03 New
      +7
      Quote: il grand casino
      .Here you only need to learn how to handle it from childhood and, first of all, to hammer that the ideal weapon is one that you will never have to use.

      That’s the problem. Those who, by the nature of their service, had weapons constantly, and not in weapons, know perfectly well that under existing laws there are more problems than real protection.
      You can hammer anything, but so far we are not able to assimilate it. I judge by the opening of hunting in different regions .. There are practically no sober. Cartridges in the trunks, constant involuntary shots and corpses ..
      Weapons can and even need to be allowed. But with compulsory military service, with compulsory training, serious and not in police schools (otherwise it will be as with rights) And absolute control. As now with hunting weapons.
      One argument, which is undeniable, the authorities can not ensure the safety of citizens, then citizens must defend themselves ....
      1. IGS
        IGS 26 September 2013 18: 29 New
        +3
        One argument, which is undeniable, the authorities can not ensure the safety of citizens, then citizens must defend themselves ....

        I would be smeared with power smile and would write: If the government is experiencing temporary difficulties in ensuring the safety of citizens, then it is the duty of citizens to help it in this. laughing
  2. jasper
    jasper 26 September 2013 16: 46 New
    +7
    as the Bolsheviks deprived the people of the right to self-defense, this continues
    1. smile
      smile 26 September 2013 17: 15 New
      +4
      jasper
      The Bolsheviks were able to save the country virtually destroyed by the liberals. Cope with monstrous banditry. To achieve a reduction in crime and corruption to a level unattainable with nicholas.
      1. jasper
        jasper 26 September 2013 18: 01 New
        +5
        Kaneshno rescued, filling it with Russian blood, and killing and expelling the educated Russian people from the country! How else? saved, from a couple of tens of millions of people, Russian culture. replacing it with the "Russian intelligentsia" who dumped, sorry not all, to Israel
        1. smile
          smile 26 September 2013 21: 50 New
          +2
          jasper
          I repeat for the hundredth time.
          1. The collapse of the state and the army took place in the spring of 17. Temporary, all-in-one princes and counts, who put Nikolashka under arrest. destroyed the army by order number one - google, understand, if only a little sense in this. why the election of command and the abolition of subordination is kirdyk army. They dismissed the police at all and the local government. The Bolsheviks at that time enjoyed a negligible influence; there were microscopically few of them.
          2. Under them, a full-scale civil war was already underway, by the middle of 17, more than 3 thousand armed peasant uprisings. In the summer, the Kornilov rebellion
          3. The Bolsheviks gained power. I'm drunk a woman under the fence is not my statement, a website visitor said quite rightly ... sorry I don’t remember .. and I really liked this expression. All Entente began to tear Russia and the Germans created the separatists and tried to tear Russia to pieces, the Poles fostered by them invaded, the white knights each had their own patron and de facto controlled them ... and the Bolsheviks began to fight for a single and indivisible ... alone. against all ... they simply had no choice .. and the people followed them, half of the General Staff of the Republic of Ingushetia and almost half of the officer corps became the backbone of the Red Army not in vain - they also realized that only the Bolsheviks were able to save Russia ... No wonder even immigrants and Denikin sympathized with them. when the Bolsheviks fought with the Poles ... But Wrangel, for example, wondered if he would go to the Poles, yeah. For them to conquer Russia ... that's all. I'm tired of you, honestly ... sorry ...
      2. domokl
        domokl 26 September 2013 18: 23 New
        +6
        Quote: smile
        The Bolsheviks were able to save the country virtually destroyed by the liberals. Cope with Monstrous Banditry

        Here ... save at the cost of your life. How many people were put down by these gang fights ... I see cops almost every evening, including TV ... Such heroic bandits, only ours. Who are fighting with bandits, but not ours ...
        And ordinary people in this fight are just consumables. There is a weapon at home, there is a right to use it when attacking a house — no matter how many innocent people were saved.
        And then, permission to buy a short barrel will not lead to total armament. To the already armed (security forces, deputies and others), 20 percent will be added, not more. Hunting weapons are allowed, traumatics are allowed, and so what? Many who bought these weapons?
        1. Gur
          Gur 26 September 2013 19: 09 New
          0
          Hunting weapons are supposed to be transported in a safe with them; they don’t walk in the streets, and now many people have injuries
          1. partisanche
            partisanche 26 September 2013 23: 02 New
            0
            where does such information come from, discharged in a case and no problems, and the safe in my house is attached at three points as it should and weighs 70 kilos, you don’t take special care and you yourself have weapons?
        2. smile
          smile 26 September 2013 21: 55 New
          +1
          domok
          You know, I can’t answer you, there’s no strength anymore, chesslovo, especially since for me this question is not fundamental ... I want to read ... but Baba Yaga (I) is against it! :))) Will you beat? :))) If you will, I warn you, I’m running fast ... and I can do this for a long time ... 15 minutes, to the Canadian border ... :)))
      3. Gur
        Gur 26 September 2013 19: 07 New
        0
        Well, I agree if the law was harsher, crime would be much lower, and I don’t understand why people should regret it under serious circumstances, and someone hijacked a car worked like a donkey and hijacked someone and if they found it, he managed to get it conditionally and it wasn’t accidentally gotten away.
      4. Andrey57
        Andrey57 26 September 2013 21: 37 New
        +1
        These "saviors" plunged a normal country into the same "monstrous banditry" because they themselves professed those very gangster methods, examples can be given endlessly, I'm not talking about the fact that they deprived Russia of victory in the First World War, and then, drowned her in blood.
        1. revnagan
          revnagan 27 September 2013 11: 29 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey57
          These "saviors" plunged a normal country into the same "monstrous banditry" because they themselves professed those very gangster methods, examples can be given endlessly, I'm not talking about the fact that they deprived Russia of victory in the First World War, and then, drowned her in blood.

          What are you talking about, what a victory, if the army collapsed by order No. 1 (the order was under Kerensky, before the Bolsheviks), the front collapsed, millions of peasants rifled home, hoping for a division of land and reform of the Provisional Government. During the war years, learning to kill , they continued to do this inside the country. The country was on the verge of rectifying the situation. The Bolsheviks were able to do it. But they didn’t act by persuasion ... they called Kerensky popularly known as the Chief Speaker.
  3. Heccrbq .2
    Heccrbq .2 26 September 2013 18: 01 New
    +2
    Yes, why would it? I have a smooth rifled and TT injury, I clean and injure without any emotions, lubricate, etc., and I pick up the carbine with some special attitude and even with caution if I serve it in the apartment.
  4. Siberian German
    Siberian German 26 September 2013 20: 48 New
    0
    Yes, no, not weapons. I agree to the barrel - but I myself feel that my level of aggressiveness is high and a little afraid for my actions, so for now I’ll refuse it
  • Stiletto
    Stiletto 26 September 2013 15: 32 New
    +8
    Courage is not the absence of fear, but the knowledge that your life is something more important than fear - A. Ridmun.
  • Konstantm
    Konstantm 26 September 2013 15: 36 New
    +7
    Not that she is afraid, our power.
    1. smile
      smile 26 September 2013 16: 46 New
      0
      Konstantm
      Do you think that our inmate directly from the bunker made an accurate diagnosis of power? Well, of course, swamp swindlers and thieves, as well as others who have fallen on the bunks of experts, such as the author, is the ultimate truth ...
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 26 September 2013 17: 37 New
        +4
        Quote: smile
        swamp swindlers and thieves, as well as others who have fallen on the bunks of experts,

        Kvachkov is an expert, and he is on the bunk. In general, bunks are not an indicator of a person’s personal qualities. But they came to the swamp and honest people. You don’t need all at once under one Navalny comb ...
        1. smile
          smile 26 September 2013 18: 31 New
          +1
          Ingvar 72
          I will repeat my own words. If Kvachkov only wanted to bang the redhead. he would remain for me a national hero ... and would not sit. by the way. But he created partisan units. From that moment on, he moved to the category of those for me. who does not know. what creates.
          According to him, he was preparing to repel the invasion of NATO troops and to partisan in the territory they seized ... No comment. In fact, he wanted to start a guerrilla war on the territory of the Russian Federation. And he would just have to kill those boys. who would defend the integrity of our state. Thus, he automatically became an ally of the Chechen bandits - they have different goals, but the result of their actions would be one-weakening of Russia.
          Under Stalin, he would go to the wall, unequivocally, and without any options.
          I guess. Kvachkov had to be stopped. But of course, this had to be done without a shameful trial and planting a well-deserved uncle in a jail. Well, or they would have let them out for their undoubted merits to the Country, confining themselves to the fact that he had served a jail.
          Or do you think that if he put a couple of dozen boys from the BB, the police, or from the treble. where he was going to get weapons, he could have banged a couple of small bureaucrats from the regional administration, while leading his supporters to the death. would Russia be happy?
          He should not be kept behind bars, but convinced ...
          And expert Kvachkov only in sabotage activities. Politically, he was shortsighted.
          About bunk-okay, I will not argue. anything can happen. But the comrade acquired the killer’s weapons — he’s a criminal, at least for this reason.
          About Bolotnaya ... yes, different people came there ... but they could not help but notice who saddled this movement. whose. Sorry, hirelings. And what, one of those gathered at the swamp-yelled, Down with the mink opposition, homosexuals and traitors of the Russian people hanging around the American embassies? No? So they became like-minded of these anal and tweet grants of the Senate by the US-barrrans, which they used at their discretion for their own purposes .... so that about the comb, it is necessary.
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 26 September 2013 18: 43 New
            +3
            Quote: smile
            But he created partisan units. From that moment on, he moved to the category of those for me. who does not know. what creates.

            What units? In a criminal case, crossbowmen are mentioned, and a converted traumatic.
            Quote: smile
            Under Stalin, he would go to the wall, unequivocally, and without any options.

            Under Stalin, he would be a national hero. Check out his views please.
            1. jasper
              jasper 26 September 2013 18: 46 New
              +2
              just like a life-bracket lol
            2. smile
              smile 26 September 2013 19: 42 New
              0
              Ingvar 72
              You read better his testimony ... he Allegedly NATO, isn’t it funny for you? -Was going to reflect with crossbows? in light of this, I fully believe that he was going to seize weapons depots ..
              By the way. if he didn’t touch the redhead, if he was not going to start a sabotage war. what is his heroism? What is the merit? Is he not a wine victim of justice? After all, in your opinion, he did not hit a finger on a finger .... Decide already ...

              And about his fate under Stalin - at the slightest suspicion of the actions that even Kvachkov recognized, they took people, and when confirming the suspicions, they put him to the wall despite the ranks. and merits exceeding the merits of Kvachkov ... Stalin knew very well how dangerous the actions of such enthusiasts were and defended the country mercilessly ..... stop flying in the clouds ... better take an interest in the fate of our territorial diversion network, destroyed shortly before the war ... by the way In my opinion, this was partially done fairly. So. what. no matter how unpleasant you are. under Stalin, he had only one fate-wall ... unless, of course, we assume that you have accomplished NOTHING ... then, of course, everything is different ... but for which he would then become national a hero? For doing nothing? I repeat, decide.
          2. partisanche
            partisanche 26 September 2013 23: 11 New
            +3
            Kvachkov, sorry, the GRU colonel under his command served as a specialist plus communications; if he wanted to liquidate Chubais he would liquidate and the operation that was carried out then was just a provocation
            1. smile
              smile 27 September 2013 02: 15 New
              0
              partisanche
              If this is a provocation, then what is his heroism? I repeat. if he didn’t hit a finger on a finger. is this the merit of Colonel GRU Kvachkov?
              And the fact that the attempt on the red-haired man failed, I don’t know who tried to bang him :)) so it could not have been possible at the GRU colonel ... we sorted out the available materials on the topic ... the harassment was organized correctly. but ... as elsewhere and always-a chain of accidents from which no one is safe, the professionalism of the red-haired guard + the skillful actions of his driver-would have driven the usual-everything would have worked-would have finished off ... like that.
              1. Ruslan67
                Ruslan67 27 September 2013 02: 59 New
                +2
                Quote: smile
                I repeat. if he didn’t hit a finger on a finger. is this the merit of Colonel GRU Kvachkov?

                The fact is that after that he was completely overwhelmed and the most ridiculous of all this action, including a moronic sentence, can be turned in any direction only for some he is an unconditional hero and they do not want to see or hear anything, and for others - the old honored man who played in the dark By the way hello toothy drinks wassat
                1. smile
                  smile 27 September 2013 11: 42 New
                  +1
                  Ruslan67
                  Great claw! In-in, neither add, nor diminish - an extremely accurate assessment!
  • Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 26 September 2013 15: 39 New
    21
    Hitler: "History teaches that all the conquerors, who allowed the races subordinate to them to carry weapons, prepared their fall for this." If we take into account other statements of great people, the conclusion is obvious - the government is simply afraid of its people. Not a single country in the world has recorded an increase in the number of crimes after the resolution of weapons. Everywhere there was a recession. We are constantly frightened by the Russian mentality, they say we will shoot each other. Nonsense is complete. How is the Moldavian mentality different from the Russian? Or Estonian? Tales of gunfire from street traumas are horror stories for housewives. Traumatism is initially a vicious weapon, perceived as a continuation of the fist, no more. As a result, corpses are crippled. And it is not possible to attach a bullet to the barrel. I think that they allowed it precisely to use this horror story as the main argument against real weapons. So I see a way out in the resolution of a firearm. And the total prohibition of injuries, regardless of whether they allow the gun, or not.
    1. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 26 September 2013 16: 23 New
      +1
      * Squint at the Yankees * Well, that’s so good with them.
    2. smile
      smile 26 September 2013 16: 52 New
      +1
      Ingvar 72
      You better ask about the accuracy of the numbers given by the author. the way the USA’s most sophisticated arms lobby is manipulating the digits, and then you can talk from scratch about the slave nature of power ... you can. by the way, refer not to Hitler. and Goebbels, it will be even funnier ... :)))
      Tales of traumatic shootings that have already become commonplace are, of course, horror stories for housewives. and absolutely real corpses and cripples — we are not at all afraid — we are brave.
    3. rereture
      rereture 26 September 2013 16: 54 New
      +6
      Then why do slaves have a smooth barrel and a dice in their hands?
      1. smile
        smile 26 September 2013 17: 21 New
        +3
        rereture
        Looks like the longer the barrel, the greater the level of slavery and the less afraid the bad power of armed citizens ... :)))
        You have to be absolute ... hydrocephalus, claiming that the authorities are afraid of short-barreled bunchaclocs, but are not afraid to give rifled carbines and toys like Saigi and Boar to their slaves ... :))) We have about five MILLION such toys in our hands .. ..
        1. rereture
          rereture 26 September 2013 17: 30 New
          +1
          I’m talking about the same person who advocates the legalization of a short-barrel: Uncle with a belly or a fellow guy standing in front of a mirror with a holster, unloading, or airsoft equipment, in the guise of an action movie hero or a super fashionable toy, and now they’re not enough for the image of a short-barrel ...
          1. Pablo_K
            Pablo_K 26 September 2013 18: 17 New
            +1
            Quote: rereture
            I’m talking about the same person who advocates the legalization of a short-barrel: Uncle with a belly or a fellow guy standing in front of a mirror with a holster, unloading, or airsoft equipment, in the guise of an action movie hero or a super fashionable toy, and now they’re not enough for the image of a short-barrel ..

            You +
            The first to run to buy pistols are those to whom they are contraindicated.
            Speaking of weapons and freedom
            The weapon is a symbol of a free man surrounded by slaves
            1. rereture
              rereture 26 September 2013 18: 29 New
              +1
              But for me, somehow there is a short-barreled sideways, or not. In any case, each short-barrel will not.
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 26 September 2013 19: 27 New
                +1
                Quote: rereture
                In any case, each short-barrel will not.

                But there will be a HIGH PROBABILITY of his appearance, which in itself is a very serious deterrent for a criminal
                1. rereture
                  rereture 27 September 2013 00: 09 New
                  0
                  This probability will not exceed 30%, since many will not have time for paperwork, there will be no money for cops, there will be no money for courses on handling weapons. Not everyone will carry the barrel with them if hidden wearing is allowed. And in the summer, in principle, one can see who is with the cop, and who is without.
            2. Misantrop
              Misantrop 26 September 2013 18: 55 New
              +3
              Quote: Pablo_K
              The weapon is a symbol of a free man surrounded by slaves
              In times of swords and bows, almost every Slav had weapons. And no slaves were observed around ... request
              And what kind of slaves did the Russians have in the first post-war years, when the number of captured weapons was just off the scale?
              1. Pablo_K
                Pablo_K 26 September 2013 20: 43 New
                0
                Quote: Misantrop
                In times of swords and bows, almost every Slav had weapons. And no slaves were observed around ..

                A bow was often used for hunting, an ax and a knife were a working tool. Well, so that someone would always go with a sword, when I can’t imagine any enemies close, I’d interfere with my work.
                Quote: Misantrop
                And what kind of slaves did the Russians have in the first post-war years, when the number of captured weapons was just off the scale?

                Lying somewhere Walter or Schmeiser, it seems, is not needed, but it is a pity to throw out.
                I am against only a short-barreled weapon, at the right time it will not be with me, I will not constantly carry with me a piece of iron weighing 600 grams.
                Against rifles and carbines I have nothing.

                About slaves.
                phrase: a weapon, a symbol of a free man, came to us from America. The planter walks with a revolver and watches how the blacks work, or suddenly the Indians will appear, whom he considers for monkeys.
                Free people need weapons for hunting, protection from enemies, and not for communication with fellow tribesmen
          2. jasper
            jasper 26 September 2013 19: 01 New
            +3
            the father of the family does not come to mind? with two daughters peanuts?
    4. Pablo_K
      Pablo_K 26 September 2013 18: 03 New
      -1
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      And the total prohibition of injuries, regardless of whether they allow the gun, or not.

      I agree, but now it’s not difficult to buy a gun,
      why a gun?
      Constantly carry traumatic only idiots
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 26 September 2013 18: 36 New
        +2
        Quote: Pablo_K
        why a gun?

        Quote: IGS
        but in about 90% of cases, the attack is terminated after "detection of the presence of equal or superior force on the part of the victim"

        Nothing to add, IGS put it very accurately.
  • Arabist
    Arabist 26 September 2013 15: 43 New
    +2
    I bet his child will be shot and his mind will change. As in the USA he probably wants. As Karlin said: "Weapons in the church are very cool - you can arrange a massacre and say that it was one of the angry parishioners."
    1. Vitlek
      Vitlek 26 September 2013 15: 55 New
      +1
      Everyone knows how in the USA, but do you know how in Russia?
      1. Arabist
        Arabist 26 September 2013 16: 29 New
        0
        Who else but me should know about?
    2. alicante11
      alicante11 26 September 2013 15: 55 New
      +5
      F a child can be shot without permission for a weapon, and much faster. That's what the problem is.
      1. smile
        smile 26 September 2013 16: 58 New
        +2
        alicante1
        If a firearm begins to be used in everyday life, in which thousands of people die every year - more than during all robberies and orders, then the number of criminal corpses will increase significantly. If a person grabs a knife or an empty bottle during a quarrel, what will prevent him from grabbing a pistol? Well, what, "sprinkle the snow with red"?
        1. jasper
          jasper 26 September 2013 18: 50 New
          +2
          a lot of legal weapons are used in "everyday life"? here it is
        2. IGS
          IGS 26 September 2013 20: 52 New
          +1
          A lot of household items using firearms (as a percentage, with more than 5 million registered barrels)? And how much with the use of piercing-cutting? Ban forks, knives, bottles, etc.? Will injuries increase? Yes, this is inevitable. But then prohibit the possession of it by law enforcement officers (or part of them). How many crossbows among them, only registered? And with a normal gun case, the inevitability of punishment will be very high. It seems to me that for some, short-barrels are a type of privilege, "not like everyone else," "an attribute of power," or a totem, if you like, that's what they are against. How will they become "equal". Remember how many dismissed from service in law enforcement agencies do not find a place for themselves in life, and sometimes end up with suicide (this, of course, not only and not so much concerns weapons, and far from all those dismissed, but we must admit the fact that some cannot stand it " to be like everyone else ") The authorities, if they were afraid, would ban hunting trunks, or go to their reduction.
    3. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 26 September 2013 16: 20 New
      12
      Quote: Arabist
      I bet they will shoot his child and his opinion will change.

      The chance that the child will be killed from the traumatic is much higher. And the opportunity to attract a killer will be much lower.
    4. intsurfer
      intsurfer 26 September 2013 16: 27 New
      +8
      and if they kill or beat them, is it better?
      1. smile
        smile 26 September 2013 17: 23 New
        +2
        intsurfe
        The chance to die from a bullet in your head is much higher than if you get a bat on that head.
        1. Arabist
          Arabist 26 September 2013 17: 24 New
          0
          Yes, you can even kill idle.
        2. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 26 September 2013 17: 52 New
          +4
          Quote: smile
          The chance to die from a bullet in your head is much higher than if you get a bat on that head.
          Do you live at the shooting range? :))) You can kill anything, but the thought of adequate, and, importantly, instant retaliation will stop many bad uncles.
          1. smile
            smile 26 September 2013 22: 01 New
            0
            Ingvar
            That is, you live on the Kulikovo field, which uses bits instead of a piece of iron? You are welcome. no such comparisons are needed .. :)))
    5. jasper
      jasper 26 September 2013 18: 49 New
      +4
      I bet. if your child is kicked to death, your wife will be "loved" while you are bound, under the threat of a knife, will "admire" this, you will drastically change your point of view
      1. Arabist
        Arabist 26 September 2013 18: 57 New
        -2
        Not you, but you turn on your head - why threaten a person with a knife if he is tied? Or nothing to include?
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 26 September 2013 19: 29 New
          +3
          Quote: Arabist
          Or nothing to include?

          The option of tying under the threat of a knife does not come to mind? And "entertainment" after ... Indeed, it is better to turn on the head wink
          1. Arabist
            Arabist 26 September 2013 19: 32 New
            -4
            It doesn’t come to me, for it was not for this that I became a servant of the law.
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 26 September 2013 19: 35 New
              +5
              Quote: Arabist
              not for that I became a servant of the law
              And I am an officer. But for some reason I was OBLIGED to protect the country from external aggression, but I DO NOT HAVE LAW, myself and my family. Paradox or rudeness of legislators?
              1. Arabist
                Arabist 26 September 2013 19: 39 New
                0
                Firstly, we are allowed to have weapons, get help and everything is in order. Secondly, Article 37 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "necessary defense" is one of the circumstances precluding the crime of an act.
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 26 September 2013 20: 17 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Arabist
                  Firstly, we are allowed to have weapons
                  I am not a justice worker, nor a deputy, nor a journalist. And more in Ukraine trauma is not allowed to have ANYONE. And not a fan of hunting, so the smooth-bore hunting barrel is unnecessary to me
                  1. Arabist
                    Arabist 26 September 2013 20: 21 New
                    -1
                    So why didn’t you immediately say that you are from Ukraine? I can’t boast of an ideal knowledge of Ukrainian laws, so here are the norms of Russian law.
                    1. Misantrop
                      Misantrop 26 September 2013 20: 26 New
                      +3
                      Quote: Arabist
                      So why didn’t you immediately say that you are from Ukraine?
                      I am offended. Staying in Russia after retirement did not work. I did not want to hang around further in the Arctic, but there was nowhere else to go. Only in Crimea, from where it was called up. request

                      And in Ukrainian laws there are a lot of holes. I was offered two years ago for 3000 cu absolutely legal to issue 7,62 mm AKM with a folding butt as a hunting weapon ...
                      1. smile
                        smile 27 September 2013 00: 18 New
                        +1
                        Misantrop
                        Cool ... in just 3 pieces? we can’t do this with automatic weapons ... for no money ...
                        And the Arctic, well, it’s in FIG, they did it right — you were responsible for your family .. I was not there. but I heard a lot of passions ...
                      2. chehywed
                        chehywed 27 September 2013 00: 35 New
                        +3
                        Quote: smile
                        And the Arctic, well, it in FIG ... I was not there. but I heard a lot of passions ...

                        Deeply respected smile, if possible, then in more detail about passions, otherwise we live in a boring place here ... there is no news about us ... laughing
                      3. smile
                        smile 27 September 2013 02: 26 New
                        +1
                        chehywed
                        What, do you seriously live in the Arctic? I take off my scalp, in the absence of a hat .... since childhood, those who have been there and even more actively, their family members who have been at my place, talked about the Arctic with a shudder ... this also related to weather conditions and housing , and supply, and education of children and employment opportunities for officer wives in the specialty ...... you know. if you say that everything is fine there now, I really want to believe you ...
                        Worse stories were only about Sakhalin, Chukotka and the Habomai Islands ...
    6. jasper
      jasper 26 September 2013 19: 31 New
      +2
      the meaning is not clear? or will you let yourself be tied? just? out of courtesy?
    7. IGS
      IGS 27 September 2013 00: 02 New
      +1
      Tell me, and if, for example, I am threatened by a housemate who has served time, slaughter me, etc. I come to the police, I inform you about this ... Your actions after that, only honestly? Guard? Isolate a neighbor? Or will you wait for the composition? This question would not have arisen if ... for many, gun ownership is a burden and an extra headache.
      1. chehywed
        chehywed 27 September 2013 00: 29 New
        +1
        Quote: IGS
        Your actions after that, only honestly? Guard? Isolate a neighbor? Or will you wait for the composition?

        Option number 3, a good friend of mine, with the only difference that the flatmate threatened to kill, and they answered: "When he does, then we'll figure it out."
        1. IGS
          IGS 27 September 2013 03: 08 New
          +1
          It is precisely against the background of the practice of law enforcement agencies "no corpse, no case." The question: "is it worth it or not to allow the citizens to arms" is removed by itself. A person has the right to protect his life and the lives of his loved ones.
  • Basileus
    Basileus 26 September 2013 15: 50 New
    -13
    The government is afraid of the people! The government is afraid of the people! 1111 Ahhhhh, we are all oppressed! 111

    Is he afraid in Europe too? In most countries of the world? Apparently, the vast majority of world governments rest on fear and contempt for their people, and only a few, for example, the US government, rest on democratic freedoms.

    You gentlemen, apparently, there are few scumbags with injuries - you need scumbags with a firearm. To fight with injuries turned into fights with corpses, for example. Evsyukov’s case is one. Cases on the application of trauma - a bunch.
    1. DuraLexSedLex.
      DuraLexSedLex. 26 September 2013 16: 06 New
      10
      Do you often see fights with a smooth-bore or rifled weapons, hunting or sports?
      1. Basileus
        Basileus 27 September 2013 08: 18 New
        +2
        Do you often carry a gun with you? Just compare their sizes.

        In addition, I do not remember that the killers in American schools and universities were stopped by someone with personal weapons - all the policemen.
        1. IGS
          IGS 28 September 2013 18: 23 New
          +1
          Do you know why they shoot at schools, supermarkets and cinemas ????? Because it is THERE IT IS FORBIDDEN TO CARRY WEAPONS, therefore they shoot, knowing that no one among the law-abiding citizens can resist. Study the question, then give examples.
          1. Basileus
            Basileus 16 October 2013 10: 25 New
            0
            They shoot in the USA, but not in our country. Examine the issue, then ask for permission.
    2. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 26 September 2013 16: 26 New
      17
      Quote: Basileus
      You gentlemen, apparently, there are few scumbags with injuries - you need scumbags with a firearm

      Everyone has knives at home, but the amount of stabbing does not go off scale. Once again, traumatism is perceived as a non-lethal weapon, which is why they get it out and use it almost without thinking. And scumbags, they are scumbags with a fork!
      1. jasper
        jasper 26 September 2013 16: 50 New
        12
        I agree. all "non-lethal" weapons should be prohibited, because people using them do not realize the convention of "non-lethality"
      2. smile
        smile 26 September 2013 17: 25 New
        0
        Ingvar 72
        It rolls over. in the country, obviously more people died from kitchen knives than from a Kalashnikov assault rifle in all our armed conflicts. And if instead of a knife they take a gun, then there will be more corpses.
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 26 September 2013 17: 56 New
          +2
          smile
          Then cars need to be banned first. After all, it is from them that perishes the most.
          1. partisanche
            partisanche 26 September 2013 23: 33 New
            0
            the professional driver himself completely agrees with you on taking away cars from dummies and it will be fun to distribute trunks to fun)))) but seriously I need the trunks myself I have three trunks plus my wife I have no complaints from the police at home and the neighbors also have weapons but we’re not letting each other go, but if someone is eager for someone else’s mercy, we ask a kalashoid called VEPR who would like to quickly beat off the hunting gun and of course I would like to have it and so far no one has rushed at me so that we can use a firearm on our street just in case, but there are different cases!
          2. Basileus
            Basileus 27 September 2013 08: 26 New
            +2
            Well, if the car is used with the intention of killing - no doubt. And the fact that the knife is the most common murder weapon in Russia is a fact. If a person decides to kill, grabs a knife, what prevents him from grabbing a gun if possible?
    3. smile
      smile 26 September 2013 17: 00 New
      +1
      Basileus
      and here I completely agree with you ... with every word, you can’t say better. And I want to express my support to you.
    4. Misantrop
      Misantrop 26 September 2013 19: 37 New
      +2
      Quote: Basileus
      Apparently, the vast majority of world governments rest on fear and contempt for their people.
      Exactly. Otherwise, juvenile justice would not be sweeping across the planet now. As well as overt propaganda of sexual perversion, shamefacedly referred to as "personal freedom"
      1. rereture
        rereture 27 September 2013 00: 13 New
        +1
        In Germany, cop is allowed, juvenile and propaganda of sexual perversion is. Korotkostvol is not connected either with the freedom of the individual, or with the freedom of expression, or juvenile justice.
      2. Basileus
        Basileus 27 September 2013 08: 20 New
        +1
        So why do you advocate freedom of arms? In the United States or Germany, she and juvenile justice, and homosexual marriage.
  • chehywed
    chehywed 26 September 2013 15: 51 New
    +9
    Quote: Author Sergey Kara
    Imagine that this weapon, which is in dead warehouses and still requires cash investments in its disposal, goes on sale and will be acquired by citizens upon presentation at least the same driver’s license.

    Better yet, sell at the entrance to the supermarket by weight and at a discount. I am for the legalization of weapons, but not by this method. At a minimum: a medical board with all the certificates from the drug and psychiatric dispensary, the absence of any criminal record, a passport, two guarantors. Something like this.
    1. intsurfer
      intsurfer 26 September 2013 16: 24 New
      +8
      In the states, they simply break through passport or rights data on an official basis and it is immediately obvious whether a person has problems with the law or not. Moreover, there even the blind have the right to arms! A normal CAM person will go to safe tenure courses and pay for them. The task of the state is to ensure that a person has a place to go to study in order to obtain the right to purchase the first weapon. And then shooting ranges and shooting ranges with instructors begin (here is the job for the retired military).
      1. Hauser
        Hauser 26 September 2013 17: 55 New
        +2
        Exactly. Huge industry. And arms companies like us do not go bankrupt.
    2. jasper
      jasper 26 September 2013 16: 51 New
      +7
      Well, I think. if you have committed an accident and paid a criminal record, this should not be an obstacle. but here is an unconditional ban on the possession of weapons to individuals. perpetrators of violent crimes
  • erased
    erased 26 September 2013 15: 54 New
    17
    Yes that's right! Article + 1000! The right to protect one’s life is given to a person from birth! And even enshrined in the Constitution and the Criminal Code. But in fact, power by all means, including illegal ones, takes this right away. A person who saved his or another's life, having taken the life of a bandit, is punished, depriving them of the right to even reconsider the case. It is beneficial for the authorities that the people in the role of a silent weak herd.
    But if in the 30s of the 20th century in the USSR the ban was of a precautionary nature - they sought to disarm the enemies of the people, and then there were enough of them, then after the 50s this ban began to bear a political emphasis. And now ... the power of bandits and thieves cannot allow people to defend themselves.
    Both statistics and common sense show that having a weapon saves lives and reduces crime. However ... we have what we have. To own long-barreled weapons is to secure the house. And how to protect yourself on the street, outside the city, in the car? Traumatism does not always cope with this, and criminals are armed with firearms. The laws are not a decree.
    This is a harsh and criminal reality.
    1. Onotollah
      Onotollah 27 September 2013 11: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: erased
      Both statistics and common sense show that having a weapon saves lives and reduces crime.

      Let us leave statistics aside, but apparently common sense is when children at school are shot with permitted weapons? How it happens repeatedly in America. With enviable regularity. And also like it happens in Europe. With enviable regularity.
      Most members of the forum nod at the evil bandits - if we had a weapon, we would have shown them 111 But let me note - the fight against crime is the matter of certain structures and trained professionals. The state is doing it. If you want to have weapons, go to serve in law enforcement structures or in the army.
      Were there many cases of armed robberies on the territory of the USSR, and what do we have now?
      This is me in terms of ensuring the safety of citizens.
  • JonnyT
    JonnyT 26 September 2013 15: 54 New
    15
    weapons to the people = death to officials! The Japanese shogun very accurately noticed everything .........

    If a person wants to commit a crime, then he initially tries to take into account all the possible details. The ability to catch a bullet prevents many from committing crimes, and a sense of impunity only exacerbates. If a person wants to kill another person, then he can do it in absolutely any way without using a firearm. I think it’s worth it to allow free sale all the same, this will help our arms enterprises, reduce crime, make people more responsible and attentive ..... in tsarist Russia free wearing was allowed and nothing, there were no shootings or bloody showdowns
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 26 September 2013 16: 39 New
      +8
      Quote: JonnyT
      .in tsarist Russia was allowed free wearing and nothing, there were no shootouts or bloody showdowns
      Not only this, virtually total disarmament of the population began ONLY during the reign of Khrushchev, before that the weapons in the house were not exotic at all. And after all, there was no showdown with trunks. And, especially, on such a scale
      1. jasper
        jasper 26 September 2013 16: 54 New
        +1
        early, the first decree was issued in 1918 by the newest form itself
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 26 September 2013 18: 38 New
          +1
          There was no free sale of weapons, but there were a huge number of award weapons, because they had the right to award them from the regiment commander. Officers had the right to carry personal weapons along with their uniforms, and the factory director also had a gun. And given the huge amount of weapons that have settled on the hands of the population in two wars ...
      2. Onotollah
        Onotollah 27 September 2013 11: 12 New
        0
        Quote: Misantrop
        And after all, there was no showdown with trunks. And, especially, on such a scale

        With all due respect, the time was a little different. You know and control, not like now.
    2. jasper
      jasper 26 September 2013 16: 53 New
      +4
      stupidity, you listen to some, so all officials need to be killed, by the way, a ban on possession of weapons must be introduced for all propagandists, robberies of loot laughing
  • DuraLexSedLex.
    DuraLexSedLex. 26 September 2013 16: 05 New
    0
    For all of the above, a legislative base is needed. It is necessary to abolish the concept of "necessary self-defense", and much more. Laws must first be created, because they must earn money, and THEN you can already try to sell barrels.
    Kaen kidatsu, who are screaming about the shootings with injuries, they say they will kill, the fact is that the NARROW weapons of the people are several times smaller than the smooth-bore, you can just make a similar license - after 5 years of smooth get a license for ONE or TWO pistols, the cost of any starts from 100 000 rub many trunks will be on hand (?). But for bandits, killers, robbers THEY WILL BE, AND WILL BE WITHOUT LICENSES.
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 26 September 2013 16: 09 New
      14
      Quote: DuraLexSedLex.
      you can just make a similar license - after 5 years of smooth get a license for ONE or TWO guns, the cost of any starts from 100 rubles.

      Very smart, protection again for the rich? Fuck with him, with cattle, let him defend himself as he wants? Weapons should be received by ANY wise sane person.
      1. DuraLexSedLex.
        DuraLexSedLex. 26 September 2013 16: 17 New
        0
        For reference, read the prices for rifled weapons from the brands H & K, Colt, Beretta, the same glocc costs from 1500 ye, and I'm talking about 3000
      2. DuraLexSedLex.
        DuraLexSedLex. 26 September 2013 16: 19 New
        +4
        And you probably want any frostbite gopnik having only a passport and 5000 rubles in his pocket to buy weapons?
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 26 September 2013 16: 28 New
          +7
          Quote: DuraLexSedLex.
          For reference, read the prices for rifled weapons from the brands H & K, Colt, Beretta, the same glocc costs from 1500 ye, and I'm talking about 3000

          Why the hell to the average person for self-defense brand for 3000 ye? PM costs (MP-71) 10-15tyr.
          Quote: DuraLexSedLex.
          And you probably want any frostbite gopnik having only a passport and 5000 rubles in his pocket to buy weapons?

          I probably want only Ferrari owners to defend themselves against the same gopniks? I want protection to be available to everyone, not just the rich.
          1. DuraLexSedLex.
            DuraLexSedLex. 26 September 2013 16: 40 New
            +1
            I don’t have a Ferrari, I don’t have a car))) But at my place lies a remington 870 and Saiga 12C + a cutter, but I mean that, these 2 trunks, together without any stray ones, are already under 100k. buy, and you will protect, if not out of responsibility, then at least out of banal pity.
            1. Vladimirets
              Vladimirets 26 September 2013 16: 44 New
              +3
              Quote: DuraLexSedLex.
              But at my place lies remington 870 and Saiga 12C + cutter, but I mean that, these 2 trunks together without any stray are already under 100k

              And what if you got this unfortunate rem for 100tyr? And what is + slicer?
              Quote: DuraLexSedLex.
              Want-buy, and you will protect, if not because of responsibility, then at least out of banal pity.

              I have 3 guns, will we continue to be measured by organs? And what does it have to do with it? I am for 1tyr and 100tyr shotgun shore, because it is a serious tool.
              1. DuraLexSedLex.
                DuraLexSedLex. 26 September 2013 16: 52 New
                -2
                I did not specifically contact you)
                Dear, do you want the trunk to cost like a cheap mobile phone? And only a passport was required to purchase it? Anyone who wants a specific trunk, he will buy it then, and he won’t have money problems, I’m still.
                Cost is a certain barrier, but it must be overcome by everyone who wants to. Then you will think 10 times "whether it is necessary or I will manage", someone will be stopped by the price, someone will be delayed with a license, someone will be held back by storage conditions. This is a common social filter.
                1. Vladimirets
                  Vladimirets 26 September 2013 16: 59 New
                  +7
                  Quote: DuraLexSedLex.
                  Cost is a certain barrier, but it must be overcome by everyone who wants to. Then you will think 10 times "whether it is necessary or I will manage", someone will be stopped by the price, someone will be delayed with a license, someone will be held back by storage conditions. This is a common social filter.

                  Again 25. What does the social filter have to do with it? I think you are not married. What average Russian family can throw 100tyr per barrel for hello? The social filter by cost is just self-defense by the thickness of the wallet. Let’s then, right away, we will issue a license for the purchase of a compressor station with a living space of at least 100 sq. M per person. Or income from half a lemon per month. Why should a gun cost such money? References yes, criminal records yes, storage conditions yes. But why is the cutting off of those who want on the basis of material wealth?
          2. Hauser
            Hauser 26 September 2013 18: 04 New
            0
            From the warehouse, 5 rubles per kg, at the price of scrap metal. So the PM somewhere is 4 rubles 75 kopecks. What profit would be MO.
        2. Misantrop
          Misantrop 26 September 2013 16: 45 New
          +7
          Quote: DuraLexSedLex.
          And you probably want any frostbite gopnik having only a passport and 5000 rubles in his pocket to buy weapons?

          If, when trying to use this gopnik, the purchased weapon will receive a term not only by him, but also by the one who issued the permit, then such armed gopniks will not appear. But rather, they simply will not become as a class. Gopnik is imprisoned to rob defenseless, at the slightest chance of resistance he is blown away
          1. DuraLexSedLex.
            DuraLexSedLex. 26 September 2013 16: 58 New
            -2
            Again we are about the patient about the operation of laws)
        3. Walking
          Walking 26 September 2013 19: 16 New
          +2
          Frozen gopnik already has weapons bought illegally.
      3. jasper
        jasper 26 September 2013 16: 55 New
        -1
        not the cost should be high, but decent insurance like OSAGO, and indeed, the possession of weapons should not be cheap, so that there would not be a temptation for those who are subjected to Marxism, will do the sharing, in your pocket
    2. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 26 September 2013 16: 26 New
      +3
      I’ll add about the restriction of the caliber for civilians, the permission to buy only to the citizens (!) Of the country, and you can still make expensive ammunition.
      P.S. Think normally, comrade, rationally.
      1. DuraLexSedLex.
        DuraLexSedLex. 26 September 2013 16: 34 New
        0
        Even now they’re not cheap, .308win from 150 r per piece !!! But it’s like a BE rifleman, I think civilians will have enough of the usual 9X18 calibers, popular in our country, 9X19 is just universal and fits all imported products. It’s just that the power of the powder charge is slightly less and everyone is happy — the cops don’t break through the armor plates, they have fewer deaths with the use, well, etc.
        1. Shadowcat
          Shadowcat 26 September 2013 16: 41 New
          0
          Thailand 9mm worth give the gods of memory in the region of 100-200 rubles apiece.
      2. jasper
        jasper 26 September 2013 16: 57 New
        +4
        ammunition dear? I am against how citizens will learn to use the trunk correctly? without regular dash classes?
    3. Misantrop
      Misantrop 26 September 2013 16: 42 New
      +7
      Quote: DuraLexSedLex.
      make a similar license - after 5 years of smooth get a license for ONE or TWO pistols
      Well, I don’t like to shoot animals that haven’t done anything bad to me. And from starvation I do not die, to live from the hunt. Retired officer, I love weapons and trained to handle it. FUCK me a bunch of headaches with hunting weapons when I'm still not going to use them for their intended purpose?
      1. DuraLexSedLex.
        DuraLexSedLex. 26 September 2013 16: 44 New
        +2
        Well, I don’t shoot protein either) I’m on targets and on plates ... well sometimes on banks, but on banks I’m on a hunt. I, too, the same hare did nothing wrong)
      2. Kars
        Kars 26 September 2013 16: 55 New
        +3
        And I personally love grenade launchers. It’s just a pleasant feeling to have what an 40-ton tank can get. It’s interesting when they can get licenses, or if they give me a big ten-ton gun, but they won’t sell the gun.)))) )))
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 26 September 2013 18: 18 New
          +8
          Quote: Kars
          if the war will give me a large ten-ton gun, and how there they will not sell the gun.))))))
          At one time he asked the political officer a question: "Why is it possible for the commander of the BC-2 to have 16 combat ballistic missiles in his personal command, but not to carry a PM with 16 rounds?" Oh, how he spat when he told him that it would be impossible to shoot a ballistic missile of an out-of-control political officer, but from the PM it would be easy laughing
  • vkrav
    vkrav 26 September 2013 16: 06 New
    10
    What is needed is not so much a permission to wear, etc., as a sanctioned law on self-defense ... In the states, the population during self-defense kills twice as many criminals than law enforcement officers ..
    weapons to the people = death to officials!

    Judging by the same states - not a fact! Half of the police are killed with their own full-time weapons.
    1. DuraLexSedLex.
      DuraLexSedLex. 26 September 2013 16: 12 New
      +6
      Police felled from the trunks are not legal.
      Well, the legislation really needs to be changed, but we won’t wait for it easier to move to the states)
  • intsurfer
    intsurfer 26 September 2013 16: 08 New
    +7
    It is high time! And this will benefit not only security, but also the economy! True, you need to change the laws so that the defenders do not become accused. It is necessary to simplify the opening of shooting ranges and shooting ranges in wastelands, in forests (along with the protection of forests from poachers), etc. Shooting ranges, courses, cafes with all this. The weapon will require repair, so workshops will appear. The weapon itself is not cheap, so there will be taxes. Weapons, equipment and safes are also not produced on one knee, which means that the factories will start working, which will pull along with them everything else.

    PS Health care and science can be the same locomotive of the economy, but not burying pipes and rails in the ground unnecessarily. And when all together, we get a working economy that does not "squat" (C) GDP because of one sneeze on the oil and gas market.
  • Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 26 September 2013 16: 21 New
    0
    I do not understand. Weapons in the Russian Federation can be relatively freely bought. Of course, you need to draw up some documents 0 medical advice, etc. And after that, a citizen can quite easily buy any hunting rifle - a rifle, a shotgun.
    But tell me - why a citizen needs a combat machine? Or are you talking about pistols? So they are many times less.
    In addition, I want to note that the Tiger shoots no worse than the SVD, because it is made on its basis. SCS is also almost AK in good hands. And that’s all with citizens who quite calmly executed documents.
    It turns out that they are advocating for the trunks of a different type - submachine guns and pistols. But tell me - why does a citizen need this? In addition, we must not forget that this can go to thieves (climbed up, stolen), children (who climbed into the safe without asking and dragged to play in the school) and others. Free sale? Nuno - psychos and woodpeckers are in any country, what is the chance that a freely bought one will not take the trunk and will not let go of the grandmother who got the rumors?
    Continuing the theme - you can buy everything. We have already understood this, the only question is how much it will cost. Now, when the weapon is limited on sale, it is illegal to buy it plus en percent higher than the price of the original weapon, which makes it not available to everyone. (By the way, the author poluchaetsya criminals, gangster-gansterito, an article on "illegal possession of weapons") It turns out that having weapons on the free sale, the same gangsters will be able to buy it cheaper and much easier.
    Another important factor is that even with a weapon, a large part of the population will not be able to shoot at anyone, but it can also get into it. so the sense of this weapon is 0,0.
    1. DuraLexSedLex.
      DuraLexSedLex. 26 September 2013 16: 26 New
      +3
      Yes, it’s not even a question of pistols, but rather of the legislative framework. Well, there’s a shotgun, but it’s going to get on a man, and on his backyard, a man with a gun (maybe a tram or gas, maybe a model or maybe a battle one) and he he’ll shoot him, and he will sit down according to our legislation. That’s the problem, and there’s no problem of selling trunks in Russia, well, since they don’t sell guns ...
      1. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 26 September 2013 16: 49 New
        0
        I heard a law on this topic is being drafted. And by the way, it’s not a fact that he will sit down, although it’s necessary to shake up the nerves, but there is an article about “Self-defense” (I remember exactly the name) and a good lawyer can prove (and if the defendant does not use rosin for everyone, including the lawyer) that it was that the defendant got scared and exceeded only in a state of effect and that's it.
    2. lelikas
      lelikas 26 September 2013 16: 33 New
      +9
      So for those who do not have it and do not need it - nothing will change, just as they could not shoot - they will not.
      It's about those who need it.
      The gun is needed for self-defense, with the Tiger you are not like work.
      1. DuraLexSedLex.
        DuraLexSedLex. 26 September 2013 16: 43 New
        0
        Yes with the Tiger fawn laughing Yes, the problem hurt, but I dare you to cry with all responsibility, there will be no progress)
        1. lelikas
          lelikas 27 September 2013 00: 15 New
          +1
          Quote: DuraLexSedLex.
          Yes with the Tiger fawn Yes, the problem hurt, but I dare you to cry with all the responsibility, there will be no progress)

          Well, no need to cry laughing -but to my regret you are absolutely right - nothing shines for us even in the distant future.
      2. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 26 September 2013 16: 44 New
        0
        The gun will be able to fire from 50 to 10 meters. If I’m closer, I’ll give it to the face with my hand or improvised material while you get it out from under the clothes - it’s open to wear, please excuse me. those. it turns out that they will shoot in the back?
      3. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 26 September 2013 18: 05 New
        0
        Who needs it?
  • FunkschNNX
    FunkschNNX 26 September 2013 16: 24 New
    +1
    The temptation will be too big to shoot, for example, a trailing roofing huckster, a bailiff executing an order to squeeze out a business, etc.
    1. Cat
      Cat 26 September 2013 16: 31 New
      +1
      Quote: Фкенщь13
      The temptation will be too big to shoot, for example, a trailing roofing huckster, a bailiff executing an order to squeeze out a business, etc.

      A double-edged sword: the precinct with the performer will also be in the know about this very temptation. And before roofing and wringing out - once again they will think carefully: there is a game of the candle, or nuevonafig =)
    2. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 26 September 2013 16: 45 New
      0
      And the temptation will be to shoot the assistant prosecutor who simply came to understand that his wife was being beaten there or for any other complaint.
    3. jasper
      jasper 26 September 2013 16: 59 New
      +3
      is it normal with your psyche? or damaged by Marxism?
    4. Hauser
      Hauser 26 September 2013 18: 16 New
      +1
      According to the classic, two troubles in Russia are fools and roads. So, the legalization of the short-barrel is the most effective way to get rid of the first - some of the fools will die, some will sit down, the rest will sharply grow wiser. Here is such a bit cynical natural selection.
      1. Cat
        Cat 26 September 2013 18: 32 New
        +3
        Quote: HAUSER
        According to the classic, two troubles in Russia are fools and roads. So, the legalization of the short-barrel is the most effective way to get rid of the first - some of the fools will die, some will sit down, the rest will grow wiser.

        Yeah, like in the old joke: in Russia, as you know, two troubles. One of them can still be solved with the help of pavers, but nobody knows what to do with the roads ... =)
        1. Hauser
          Hauser 26 September 2013 20: 03 New
          0
          Give your friends a shotgun
          And daredevils among them there.
          Give your friends a shotgun
          And the fools will be transferred.
          When the last enemy fell,
          The trumpet shouted victory
          Only at that moment did I realize:
          Oh, how few of us are left.
          Also almost a classic.
  • Cat
    Cat 26 September 2013 16: 24 New
    11
    Quote: Basileus
    You gentlemen, apparently, there are few scumbags with injuries - you need scumbags with a firearm. To fight with injuries turned into fights with corpses, for example. Evsyukov’s case is one. Cases on the application of trauma - a bunch.

    It's not about thugs, but about the attitude of law enforcement agencies towards them. And it turns out: horsemen came to Moscow for a wedding, started shooting in the air - so what? First, they look for them long and tediously (this is with the current abundance of video cameras, recorders, and crowds of "well-wishers" with smartphones), when they do find them, they make snot about "national traditions" and so on, and in the end everything is limited to a small fine and a couple days in the monkey house, or even being released "on bail." The same goes for "showdowns" with shooting - long searches, human rights lawyers, subscriptions and pledges, a couple of years probation or with a line. And that's all. In this situation - why would those thugs not show off?
    And if for firing in a public place, even in the air - 5 years of stabbing with a subsequent ban on the possession of something cooler than a slingshot, if firing was carried out due to drunkenness or "under the influence" - 10 years with confiscation. And no mitigating, no lawyers, collateral, and glances at "respected" parents. And if such a system really worked, all the thugs would be the first to refuse to carry trunks with them, albeit three times legal.
    But alas ... Not those times in the yard.
    1. Walking
      Walking 26 September 2013 19: 25 New
      0
      It is necessary that the law acted without concessions inevitably for all equally.
      1. jasper
        jasper 26 September 2013 19: 37 New
        0
        the inevitability of punishment, it is a banal spherical horse in a vacuum, in nature there is nothing ideal, only balance, the severity of the punishment and the degree of inevitability
        many cormorants (hooligans, in jargon) are not stupid boys, and greyhounds from impunity, knowing that it is really possible to get a bullet shot, they quickly become cute, law-abiding people
  • zadorin1974
    zadorin1974 26 September 2013 16: 28 New
    +3
    The short-barrel topic is already starting to bother. I'm honestly for legalization -NO !!! First of all, we need to bring our laws to a reasonable conclusion-well, let's say tomorrow they allowed the sale and what? Will it turn out like with injuries? Where is the line (prescribed in the Criminal Code) of legal self-defense ? Even the judges (not to mention the trackers) don’t know, well, or don’t want to know. Yes, I like the weapon (I would honestly hold an entire arsenal), but I think about the fact that in our country there are enough idiots who think he bought a gun everything will become cool with him — they willn’t pester you (I’ll show them the gun and they’ll all run away) when you give me an argument that they can take away weapons and they should be able to handle them — all in a pose — yes, I served in the army and I don’t only the machine was trusted - let's not confuse the concept - in the army your barrel is in the arms and when it was given to you forty-three eyes were watched so that you don’t mess up anything (those who went to the mountains didn’t touch it –– they quickly grew up, but there especially gifted) You are at home the furniture itself is the master — can you have a bump and can’t share something with your neighbor — who guarantees the consequences? MY OPINION — first bring the legal framework to a working condition and immediately ban injuries (directly remove from circulation, well, people don’t understand why we need it- and it doesn’t justify itself). The next stage — a permit to store long-barreled smooth-bore weapons — for about ten years, a citizen has stored and wears, we proceed to the third stage — purchase of a rifled short-barreled gun without the right to search (transportation can be thought out in minisafe as an option) —the fourth stage is already permission for hidden wearing - by this time a citizen is gaining both age and mind. Here is the appearance of the whole process in my understanding. OTHERWISE I DISAGREE !!!! I’m a rather adult person — I have three children, I love my wife — I don’t want going out for me and my loved ones turned into a military exit !!! It’s very sad to read the comments of some actors who, like little children in a toy store, carry all heresy about an attack, that they scare all bandits with weapons - go to the gym at least once a week - you can feel confident and stop being afraid of hooligans.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 26 September 2013 18: 19 New
      +2
      Quote: zadorin1974
      go to the gym at least once a week - you can feel confident and stop being afraid of bullies.

      With a crowd of drunken youngsters will not ride. The only sport that can help in this situation is sprinting, but the possible presence of a war trunk will make you think in any condition. Weapons are needed precisely as a deterrent.
      1. Walking
        Walking 26 September 2013 19: 27 New
        +2
        The gym will not help life is not a movie and you are not Bruce Lee.
        1. zadorin1974
          zadorin1974 26 September 2013 20: 43 New
          +1
          I welcome you Invar and Peshiy. Well, please explain to me please that we live in different countries? Here I work in security (I often go on business trips to my native country) I do motorsport for myself and (it happened) go in for teenagers (especially from a special school -difficult) and I live, let’s say so, in a rather complicated region. So, even there wasn’t even a thought at home. Young people should be put on level just not to be vigilant. I’m far from a tyson — more like a telepuzik, not tall and long since But even at night, I’m not in the weak face to go into the nightlight — by the way, the local bull’s going there. If you need a trunk to deal with a bunch of youngsters, I’m ashamed and sad for you. After these words, I really become an opponent of legalizing weapons - it’s definitely impossible for you, it will be taken from you
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 27 September 2013 00: 17 New
            0
            Quote: zadorin1974
            If you need a trunk to deal with a bunch of youngsters

            I don’t need a trunk for this. And I'm sorry, I doubt that you can oppose a crowd of drunk 16-year-olds with anything other than a quick run. And just assuming that you might have a trunk will make them abandon their intention to stomp you with bloody diarrhea .
            1. rereture
              rereture 27 September 2013 00: 27 New
              0
              If the crowd of drunk teenagers is 3-6, even if you have a short barrel, it is better to run, since drunk people are generally without brakes and less sensitive to pain.
  • Uzoliv
    Uzoliv 26 September 2013 16: 29 New
    0
    Today you can buy any document in our country: passport, rights, diploma, sick-list, etc. In the same way, it will be possible to buy the necessary documents authorizing the acquisition of weapons. Therefore, if tomorrow we allow the free sale of weapons, then the day after tomorrow we begin to choke on blood. Let’s first reduce corruption to a minimum level, put in order an elementary order.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 26 September 2013 16: 53 New
      +4
      Quote: Uzoliv
      Today you can buy any document in our country: passport, rights, diploma, sick-list, etc. In the same way, it will be possible to buy the necessary documents authorizing the acquisition of weapons. Therefore, if tomorrow we allow the free sale of weapons, then the day after tomorrow we begin to choke on blood.

      Contradict yourself. Those who can buy any document can buy the solution to their problems in the same way. Through a corrupt court, police, and lured bandits. So if a weapon receives a normal layer of the population, then only those to whom the law is not written now will be washed with blood. Or do you think that the bulk of the population is law-abiding solely from their poverty?
    2. jasper
      jasper 26 September 2013 17: 00 New
      +2
      and if you introduce serious criminal liability? so from 10 years? for trade in documents? inquiries? including for the doctors themselves?
    3. partisanche
      partisanche 26 September 2013 23: 55 New
      0
      all this cheese was already chewed up in the subject of a frostbitten shooter in Belgorod who flunked two sellers in the HUNTING shop and two more girls on the street, the criminal would always find weapons for committing a crime, but why speak illegally, probably the flow of lope and legal weapons from the nineties everyone who has retired from the business has shronchiki in the nearest forest belt, but if on the next day after issuing the doctor’s certificate to the deceased in his own entrance, he will take the person dealt with a gop stop next time 10 times before thinking about issuing the next certificate if he surely remains alive.
  • intsurfer
    intsurfer 26 September 2013 16: 30 New
    +1
    Quote: DuraLexSedLex.
    For reference, read the prices for rifled weapons from the brands H & K, Colt, Beretta, the same glocc costs from 1500 ye, and I'm talking about 3000

    and in Europe or the United States - 2-3 times cheaper.
  • Whole
    Whole 26 September 2013 16: 35 New
    +5
    Under the existing law enforcement practice, permission for a short-barreled = a ticket to prison. I am for the legalization of KO, but now fighting even with my bare hands against opponents superior in number in the event of injury, the victims may not be. At the moment, the state grants the citizen the right to either die or "run Forrest, run!"
    1. jasper
      jasper 26 September 2013 17: 02 New
      +1
      so everything is interconnected, our laws are still largely Soviet, according to which the people of our country are deprived of elementary human rights, including remnants of Marxism to self-defense. created for "ideal" people, cyborgs programmed
  • ka5280
    ka5280 26 September 2013 16: 46 New
    -5
    Author minus! The article is absurd, the American example is not enough for you. Think about it, because each schizo will have the opportunity to get a trunk, which he will put into business without hesitation, go to school or shoot several people at the bus stop. This time, secondly the bagpipe with me, is not a guarantee of security. She needs to be able to use it. We do not have all the police from 15 meters in the target hit, and you offer everyone to arm themselves.
    P.S. Buying a gun in Latvia is more difficult than a tank in Russia. I, as a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania, declare this responsibly. And we have more and more serious crimes year after year.
    1. intsurfer
      intsurfer 26 September 2013 17: 15 New
      +1
      >> She also needs to be able to use. Not all policemen hit the target from 15 meters, and you suggest everyone to arm themselves.

      If there are a lot of shooting ranges and shooting galleries, shooting at them will cease to be elitist and the level of skill will increase for everyone - both the police and citizens. According to statistics in the same US when shooting at criminals, citizens fall into third parties several (!) Times less than police officers. A liquidate criminals 2 times more. And yes, the most disadvantaged states of crime are those where weapons are prohibited.

      Immediately on this resource was about Switzerland and what mountains of arms there are on their hands - and everything is calm for some reason.

      Threat I have experience when some jerk came out to me with a bat. It’s very, you know, unpleasant to stand with the camera against the bat, and I’m already a little old waving my fists ...
      1. ka5280
        ka5280 26 September 2013 18: 11 New
        +1
        The idea of ​​weapons in America is somewhat illusory. I am for the fact that there would be order in the country, by definition. Like in the USSR in the 70s.
  • ka5280
    ka5280 26 September 2013 16: 50 New
    +2
    And yet, there was one, the country of the USSR was called, here everything was fine with law enforcement.
    1. Arabist
      Arabist 26 September 2013 17: 02 New
      0
      The USSR had the lowest crime rate in the world. And weapons were not particularly required and punishment as in Muslim criminal law. Nice were the days. But I do not believe that they left forever.
      1. zadorin1974
        zadorin1974 26 September 2013 17: 20 New
        -1
        Guys, it’s just life was different! The people are the same. People don’t live in big cities, but animals survive - on the roads they are ready to tear each other for an oblique look, for a word against.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 26 September 2013 17: 18 New
    -1
    What nafig "weapon to the people"?

    "In Rostov-on-Don, they detained a young man who, during a dispute about the work and merits of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, shot his opponent with a traumatic weapon."(C)

    If even our "philosophical disputes" end in shooting? To have a weapon in your hands, you must have at least a culture of carrying and using it. And this is such a thing that no laws and no "courses" can instill it.

    I myself am a career soldier, I love weapons, I know how to handle them and would like to be able to buy them freely. But damn it ... it's enough to drive through the city once at rush hour to understand that this is from the category of fantasy or "direct sabotage" - because with our culture ... we heap up corpses "to the level of a cult."
  • Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 26 September 2013 17: 34 New
    +1
    In Israel there are no big problems with the purchase of weapons. But. To do this, you need to undergo a psychiatric examination, get a police certificate and take a shooting training course. And in normal times, people rarely wear trunks. That's when there was a surge of terrorist danger in 2000-06, then there were a lot of people with weapons walking around.
  • Kerch
    Kerch 26 September 2013 17: 38 New
    +1
    Not a specialist in the field of weapons and self-defense, but I will express my opinion. And how is a person with a gun going to use for his self-defense? This man is walking along the street (let's call him A), others towards him - B and C. - I will consider the three most frequent averaged cases:
    1) B and C approach A at arm's length. B distracts A with question, conversation, and B deals several blows to the head, trunk, and groin. And he falls, he has no time to get any gun. B and C search A, take the barrel as well.
    2) B (or C) or B and C show aggression in advance, and A is sure that it will be beaten. There is a chance to get a gun and keep B and C at a distance without entering into a previously lost hand-to-hand fight.
    3) "A" can get into a road conflict with the use of bits from the side of B and C. Here the pistol can save.
  • Vorchun
    Vorchun 26 September 2013 17: 46 New
    +4
    From announcements in pre-revolutionary (until 1917) magazines -
    "" REVOLVER WITH 50 CARTRIDGES.
    ONLY 2 RUBLES.
    Safe and loyal weapons for self-defense, intimidation and raising alarm. It completely replaces expensive and dangerous revolvers. Striking hard. It is necessary for everyone. Permission for this revolver is not required. 50 additional cartridges cost 75 kopecks, 100 pieces - 1 p. 40 kopecks., 35 kopecks are calculated for postage by cash on delivery, 55 kopecks to Siberia. When ordering 3 pieces, ONE REVOLVER is included for FREE.
    Address: Lodz, "Slava" O. "
  • sub307
    sub307 26 September 2013 17: 48 New
    0
    As always - "the truth is somewhere nearby."
  • Naval
    Naval 26 September 2013 17: 53 New
    +1
    Weapons should be taught and preferably from childhood. Otherwise, it will be the same as with blondes driving, instead of a brake, gas, but for now I painted my lips and drove to a stop. And only then to sell weapons and preferably expensive, so that it would immediately be clear that this is not a toy.
  • intsurfer
    intsurfer 26 September 2013 17: 57 New
    +1
    Quote: Taoist
    If even our "philosophical disputes" end in shooting? To have a weapon in your hands, you must have at least a culture of carrying and using it. And this is such a thing that no laws and no "courses" can instill it.


    Are all disputes ending in shooting? Crazies were, are and will be. With and without weapons. A culture of handling weapons without weapons is difficult to instill. How can you learn to drive a car without getting behind the wheel. It is like a nuclear weapon in Russia and other countries. Nobody is going to apply, but nobody is in a hurry to completely get rid of it either.

    >> for with our culture ... we heap up corpses "to the level of cult".
    It's not about culture, but about the impunity of some of the characters. When EVERYONE is fined for traffic violations, then culture will immediately appear on the roads. Also with a weapon - just took it out, get a bullet in the forehead. The news reported that in Israel someone shouted "Allah Akbar" at the Wailing Wall while sitting in the toilet, then a swarm of lead wasps flew into his booth. There are generally a lot of people with weapons, but I personally have not heard any shooting in almost 2 months of my business trip.
  • IRBIS
    IRBIS 26 September 2013 18: 07 New
    +2
    "I paid off, poured a pack of bucks, tucked the gun into my belt and, saying goodbye, went into the darkness."

    Type - confession for the illegal acquisition and storage of firearms. I ask representatives of the authorities to draw up and accept for content.
    Author, do not tell me, but why the hell did you need a similar trunk?

    "Let's imagine that this weapon, lying in a dead weight in warehouses and requiring more financial investment in its disposal, goes on sale and will be purchased by citizens upon presentation of at least the same driver's license."

    What is there to breed a bureaucracy - some kind of driver’s license, let's sell on library cards or fitness subscriptions?
    Rave. Sivoy. Mares. I am a professional soldier, albeit in reserve. Not boasting, but stating a fact, I will say - the ability to wield a weapon (the speed and accuracy of its use) is at a very decent level. And what should I, if the author's "dream" come true, bang every jerk who tries to show his "significance" with his trunk? Every "nervous" or "tough" driver who will also go to the gun? The weapon gives an imaginary sense of invulnerability and universal righteousness. The type may simply, in his stupidity, try to "scare", but will get a bullet. And not just one.
    About the feeling of fear for the family, for the wife and child, I do not even speak ...
    1. ka5280
      ka5280 26 September 2013 18: 19 New
      +2
      Soglasen s Vami polnost'ju.
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 26 September 2013 19: 12 New
      0
      Quote: IRBIS
      The weapon gives an imaginary sense of invulnerability and universal rightness ...
      ... only if it is EXCLUSIVE. After all, it would not occur to you to brag, for example, of cowards? And what, not so long ago, high-quality underwear was also not widely available luxury. For hours, a cell phone, but you never know the items, the use of which until recently was a sign of simply unreal coolness. Everyone now has a kitchen knife in their house, but for some reason they don’t run along the streets with them. And if someone runs with a knife, then this is a sign of obvious inadequacy and a condition for IMMEDIATE action. Why did you decide that with a firearm it will be different? Only on the grounds that Estonians and Moldavians are many times smarter and more visionary than Slavs? Or have they already shot all the children and women since the introduction of the permission for the short barrel was introduced?
  • Lech from ZATULINKI
    Lech from ZATULINKI 26 September 2013 18: 36 New
    +4
    Nonsense — I’m not a professional military man, and what of it.
    I am the same citizen of my country as you are and I want to be able to defend myself legally.
    As for the jerks you are talking about - these jerks have been laid down by a lot of people in the coffin with bits, knives, guns.
    It must be clearly defined in the law that a scumbag attacked a person with a threat to life - he signed himself a death sentence.
    Now at the moment it is better to be a living violator of the law on self-defense than to be a dead law-abiding citizen.
    1. jasper
      jasper 26 September 2013 18: 58 New
      +4
      namely, the right to protect life, honor, dignity, property, family- was trampled by the occupying Soviet authorities! It is necessary to return to the Russian people his legitimate human rights!
  • Geyts
    Geyts 26 September 2013 19: 00 New
    +5
    I am for a short-barreled firearm, there will be more order than now
  • NORILCHANIN
    NORILCHANIN 26 September 2013 19: 03 New
    +5
    I think the weapon in the house is self-defense! When our DUMA (THEY ALL HAVE SHORT-HOUSES) adopts a law on self-defense, crime will be reduced -
    This is fading. I have two trunks at home and one injury, those that are at home in a safe
    and their use can only be about an attack on a home, and the trauma is always with me and I will apply for any threat, even to life, even to health or
    property. Short-barrel sale I think should be allowed to ALL LEGAL CITIZENS. I personally FOR SELF-DEFENSE AND PROTECTION OF FAMILY AND HOUSING I WOULD HAVE STECKIN WITH HUNDRED OF CARTRIDGES FOR 10-15 TR, a very reliable and slaughter machine!
  • alexpro66
    alexpro66 26 September 2013 19: 14 New
    +4
    The authorities of our country for a long time will not give permission to purchase and store rifled firearms, similar to those in the states, because they perfectly understand that profit is profit, and this weapon very much in high probability can turn against them .. this and this only holds back the legalization of free sales of weapons in our country. You yourself see what country we live in ... if the states DIGITAL LAW AND RESPECT him all because it is applied not depending on your status and the amount of money you have, then we have hell knows that ... who is in power (and with money) right .. And the culture of handling weapons in the states is at an altitude, even if they use it then in 80 percent only when they shoot a bullet in their head .. I can imagine that in our first couple of years, if the purchase of weapons is allowed, the gene pool has been cleared -prisons I think lost 50 percent of their regular customers)))
    I can cite the example of Texas as the only state where, with a special license (which really needs to be earned yet), civilians are allowed to openly carry short-barreled weapons (with the exception of large and several small cities) and the crime rate there is the lowest in the states and does not shock anyone when a brave cowboy-type man will go to a bar to drink beer with a huge barrel on his belt - even on the contrary, people feel safe!
    1. jasper
      jasper 26 September 2013 19: 40 New
      +1
      stupidity, just the traditional bone of thinking and Soviet education, no matter what happens lol
  • Oskar
    Oskar 26 September 2013 19: 22 New
    0
    Imagine, after the permission of wearing, Moscow without traffic jams from endlessly passing motorcade. The "servants of the people" will have to fly, otherwise the hour is not equal ...
    1. jasper
      jasper 26 September 2013 19: 41 New
      +1
      nonsense, only individuals who have not matured argue this way, security will still be better armed and people will be more trained, because for you this is a hobby, and for them a profession
  • tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 26 September 2013 19: 39 New
    +1
    Leaving the army, take Kalash home. This will solve the problem of the old Kalash and increase the security of the population.
    PySy. from S.K. do not take into the army and, as a result, do not give machine guns wassat
  • Just
    Just 26 September 2013 19: 52 New
    +3
    Everyone considers this question from the point of view - So I pull out the baking paper and call for the order of the bandit !! Hooray, good won !!
    Does anyone read about incidents in the country? Is watching TV? Well, imagine that in all cases when a traumatic weapon was used, a firearm will be used. Those. people quarreled because of an accident and one took and shot in the fever at the other. Not only will he kill the opponent, but also from his misses and ricochets of bullets that passed right through the opponent, others will suffer.
    Someone will say, they say, now millions of hunting rifles are in the hands of the people, and nothing bad happens. Yes, it does not. Because the law prohibits the secret carrying of firearms. By the way, even in the United States in many states it is necessary to carry firearms OPEN. Those. both on you and in the car, the weapon should be in sight.
    Well, so much has been written and rewritten so much about manipulating numbers when upholding the position on the free sale of weapons that VRNUs should already have reached the point of death.
    And yet, now few people buy injuries, realizing that this is more of a toy, not a weapon. But if they are allowed to have real short-barreled weapons, they will buy it, as in the USA, ALMOST EVERY man. So the practice of using weapons, in comparison with injuries, will increase. With all the consequences.
    1. alexpro66
      alexpro66 26 September 2013 20: 07 New
      +3
      Please tell me in what states is it allowed to carry weapons openly ?? And what kind of weapon? More in detail if possible. In California, for example, you even need to pull the shutter out of your weapon during transportation and insert the orange plastic plug, it’s very difficult to get permission to carry it hidden, keep it at home as you like, I’m going to the street, remember the state law ..
      For example, when I worked in California I had a working visa to buy a Winchester 94 passed the driver’s license exam, this is basically the main document by which you can buy a trunk, but they immediately told me in the store that there could be problems with getting a purchase and advised me to sign up for a shooting club it will solve all problems. I signed up for the club and really there were no more problems with the acquisition — I paid installments, training fees, etc., and after 15 days I was already firing at the shooting range, but I couldn’t go to the shooting range only after applying for the club three months later I got a second license level with the right to shoot birds and gophers)) But in any case, if I took the weapon home I had to deactivate it and carry it only in cases, the law did not allow putting it in the car. After I moved to the Texas club, there was more and more freedom. I even bought two AR-15s and, after receiving a Texas license, I could carry weapons in the car LOADED! The truth is the responsibility if I accidentally fired a barrel while transporting the hoo!
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 26 September 2013 20: 20 New
        +1
        The laws of some states seem crazy to the average person.

        1. In the states of Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Vermont, you can carry weapons without special permission for people over 16 in public places, if it is hidden under clothing or in a holster. Vermont stands out from this four: a 16-year-old teenager can absolutely legally carry a gun in his jeans pocket without parental permission, but he won’t be able to go to the movies for many films - there are very strict age restrictions. This means that minors and not very arrows did not violate the laws of these four states until they opened fire to kill.

        2. In 17 states, including Oklahoma and Florida, an employer cannot prohibit employees from carrying weapons to work or keeping them in a car on site. Residents of Indiana or North Dakota can sue their employer if they are asked if they have weapons with them.

        3. In the United States there are laws "my home is my fortress": if the owner of the house feels a threat, he can fire without warning at a citizen who has invaded his territory. 34 states allow the use of weapons if a person feels threatened in a public place. In Florida, for example, the police cannot arrest a person who starts shooting in a public place if there is reason to believe that he was defending himself.

        4. Only three states in the United States, as well as the District of Columbia, completely prohibit the open carrying of weapons. In 35 states, this is quite possible. In 47 states and the District of Columbia, long guns can be carried as "less dangerous."

        5. According to federal laws, long-barreled weapons can be bought by a person older than 18 years, and a pistol - older than 21 years. But these rules apply to sales by merchants who have a federal license. Only 28 states have similar restrictions for local licensed merchants. In 22 states, there is simply no minimum age to buy weapons: at least an eight-year-old can do this.

        6. The minimum age for ownership (but not purchase) of the gun at the federal level has not been established. Long guns in most states can be owned by people 18 years of age or older. True, New Yorkers - from 16 years old, Montana - from 14 years old. There are no restrictions in 30 states: you can go to first grade with a rifle, but you will have to leave it at the school door.

        7. Yes, it is forbidden to carry weapons in schools, but in Kansas a law was passed in 2010 that allows students to carry weapons to their classes. Last week, such a law was passed in Michigan.

        Jeffrey Sachs, a professor at Columbia University, explains the craving for arms as "American cultural heritage." The United States has always been a rather aggressive country: at first, the Europeans practically destroyed the local population. Then the right to bear arms was enshrined in the second amendment to the country's constitution. Then this was due to the fact that the inhabitants had to defend themselves against the British, who did not recognize the liberation of the colonies.

        Now the need for protection has disappeared, but for some reason the weapon is still associated with freedom. But instead of protection, Americans receive mass executions and killings. American weapons culture has become a threat to freedom.

        See the original material at http://www.interfax.ru/russia/txt.asp?id=281419
        1. alexpro66
          alexpro66 26 September 2013 20: 34 New
          +4
          Yes, you are absolutely right in writing this information only one thing but! The law allows a teenager to wear weapons for 16 years, even in his underpants, just getting a license to carry a teenager is almost IMPOSSIBLE - do not read the laws without amendments. AMENDMENT changes the law beyond recognition! I won’t go through the points. But three years ago, the Federal Law closed all the possibilities of acquiring and carrying weapons up to 18 years old in all states except Texas. It is also forbidden to bring weapons to school students-categorically, some states are suing the feds but to no avail
          Regarding the open carrying of weapons, again look at the amendments to the laws if you go, for example, in a large city, to a street with openly portable weapons, in five minutes you will lie face down on the asphalt and listen to your rights .. Each state has its own laws, but they also have federal laws A LOT of amendments, so lawyers in the states make good money. I personally came across this. It’s best to always ask the seller what is possible in the state where you are and what is impossible if you just don’t know the amendments and read the law, you can easily get into jail!
          Nobody will dispute your right to purchase and wear but prove to you that you are wrong on the basis of amendments to the laws! These are the states!
          The only dark state in Alaska for me, they even told me there in Anchorage they walk down the street with rifles and rifles .. there was nothing I can’t say
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 26 September 2013 20: 12 New
      +2
      Quote: Simpleton
      But if they are allowed to have real short-barreled weapons, they will buy it, as in the USA, ALMOST EVERY man. So the practice of using weapons, in comparison with injuries, will increase. With all the consequences.
      This is theorizing. And the practice is in Estonia and Moldova. Very similar to the horror that you portrayed here?
  • intsurfer
    intsurfer 26 September 2013 20: 19 New
    +1
    on one entertaining resource a report from an American arms exhibition. Ammunition boxes are sold and no one was shot
  • Grishka100watt
    Grishka100watt 26 September 2013 20: 29 New
    0
    And not more than a few days ago a group of Caucasians shot the guard of a club. More than 10 people came with injuries and staged a waste.
    Question: Do you want them to have real weapons?
    Just do not say that you can’t stand up for yourself without a gun. Need less action movies to watch. When the barrel is pointed at you, I assure you, you will take an innocent look, and you will never get a gun for anything, for nothing.
    1. jasper
      jasper 28 September 2013 08: 45 New
      0
      I want to. what would the guard. passers-by had real weapons, the lion's share of Caucasians. realizing. that brains may be on the wall, immediately blown away
  • zennon
    zennon 26 September 2013 20: 58 New
    0
    We are breaking through the open door. It has long been proven that wearing a short barrel leads to a decrease in crime. The authorities do not know this? I’m begging you! Just those in power regard the armed people as a threat to their loved ones! Where is it easier to keep people for B.Y.D .L.O.
    http://guner.ru/podborka-faktov-o-grazhdanskom-oruzhii/
  • tenere1200
    tenere1200 26 September 2013 22: 03 New
    +6
    Hello everyone. A couple of years ago I was like most citizens for weapons. I thought that in case of which I would get a gun and everyone was crap one's pants. Until one ripped my phone from my pocket, and when I caught up with him, I stupidly shot me point-blank from the OSA. Yes, I twisted it, took the pistol, and like a honest citizen wrote a cart to the district police officer. And he brought the money to the district police officer - and the case was buried.
    And then I thought - that he might have a combat pistol. And then I would not write these lines. and it would have cost him more. Or he would later get out of prison, and then smoke the sky. For it is possible to get out of prison, but not from the other world. '' Then the topic slipped through - first to establish a system of accounting and examinations - and then to allow them to carry guns. Nonsense and nonsense. Does anyone believe this ??? The system in our country is so rotten - that ANY issues can be solved for cabbage. Rights to a car, sick leave, a permit for a barrel, a permit to purchase the barrel itself, a place in a kindergarten and a lyceum, a permit for any commercial construction, a diploma at a school and an institute, a military soldier, about the traffic police are generally silent - after the re-examination, only crystal-clear people remained - etc. Do you really think that those who "need" will honestly pass the exams? They won't even come to these exams. Therefore, you should not entertain yourself with the illusion that it is in the question of weapons that everything will be fair.
    Many people avoid saying that in our country the people are not the same as in other countries. And this is exactly so. We are very different from the same Lithuania and Latvia, where weapons are allowed. In our country, the people are really plague, partly because there is no inevitability of punishment. Very, very many confused freedom and permissiveness. That's why I am against weapons. Although I have a traumatic, and the gun is semi-automatic. And I passed the exams for all this myself.
    And at the end of the story. Imagine what is happening with your friends. For some time you invited your beloved to a restaurant. We sat and drank. We decided to go to the square, take a walk around the evening city to catch a taxi on the other side. In the park, a group of young people suddenly began to share something. They did not want anything from you, they did not even want your phone. They did not want to invite your wife to dance. Just one took out the barrel - bought completely legally - and a stray bullet hit your wife in the face. I don’t care what then. Even if you also have a cannon - and you immediately decided it in return - it is no longer there. Children all the time with my grandmother. You are alone for many years. Work and alcohol. Unthinkable regret and pain. Now you still want to carry weapons freely? And there are many options for this story. I didn’t drive there, I said something wrong. For example, I'm just afraid that our citizens will have such an argument as weapons. Because the realization of this comes when it is directed at you.
    1. zadorin1974
      zadorin1974 26 September 2013 23: 22 New
      +1
      Dear tenere1200, it is very pleasant that people who are able to give reasons based on personal experience and thoughtful ones come to the dialogue. Reading the comments, it becomes sad that for most of the so-called "officemen" and "keyboards", the opinions of the professional military and employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs are like an irritant. the opportunity would give you 100 pluses.
      1. jasper
        jasper 28 September 2013 08: 48 New
        0
        not all "officemen" are fat bespectacled, some are regularly engaged in practical shooting, well, the link to our "ohans" is simply ridiculous, especially considering their staff, where there are 10 per person ...
    2. lelikas
      lelikas 27 September 2013 00: 42 New
      +1
      Quote: tenere1200
      And there are many options for this story.

      As a weapon supporter, I gave you a plus - in the last megateme I already wrote - one of the options for what might be a hamster comes out of the cage at night and bites me to death, an orphan daughter, my wife thumps ....
      No need to give vent to imagination.
      It was just the awareness of defenselessness that came to me personally when there was a thin plywood door between the bull and the saiga and my family. Do you think the police drove them away? Only when the locals began to pull up with guns did the brothers merge quickly.
      The guardians arrived after 2,5 hours and, as usual, didn’t find anything, for which they checked the permission of all the villagers for weapons.
      But nothing - our government has already decided everything for us - and we won’t have a short barrel.
    3. jasper
      jasper 28 September 2013 08: 47 New
      0
      Well, if you had shot him legally? how would he bring money to the district policeman?
  • intsurfer
    intsurfer 26 September 2013 22: 45 New
    0
    Quote: tenere1200
    And there are many options for this story. I didn’t drive there, I said something wrong. For example, I'm just afraid that our citizens will have such an argument as weapons. Because the realization of this comes when it is directed at you.

    and the option that people will start to think what they are doing and saying, why aren’t you considering? A crazy bullet - even now. Watch a video about shooting in St. Petersburg this week.
  • Chever
    Chever 26 September 2013 23: 37 New
    -1
    Eh, and I would not refuse AK or Glock ... laughing
  • Ivan Sidorov
    Ivan Sidorov 26 September 2013 23: 48 New
    +1
    How much this pouring from empty to empty got it! Dear, such discussions periodically arise and go out, not convincing anyone of anything: everyone remains at his own opinion. Example: a dispute in "VK" - one person is sincerely surprised - they say why are you going broke - in Russia, decent people a long time ago, since the late 90s, any pistol has been allowed! Absolutely anyone. You need to make a contribution to the Fund for Assistance to the Ministry of Internal Affairs (there is one!) Of 50000 euros, you are officially, by order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, awarded with a personalized weapon, which you pay (these costs are additional) and that's it! You have a combat stubby in your pocket. And then the man honestly says - and who can not make such a contribution - it's real. How can you give them weapons ?!
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 27 September 2013 10: 55 New
      0
      Those who can make such a contribution do not need a gun - they have security with machine guns.
      Cheaper to get a security guard license.
  • SlavaP
    SlavaP 27 September 2013 00: 37 New
    0
    And also ask our Israeli colleagues how many terrorist attacks were prevented because someone in the crowd was with a barrel and reacted.
  • Zhenya
    Zhenya 27 September 2013 00: 47 New
    +3
    READ OUT !!!
    We are not America, we will have executions regularly and with 100 corpses. The whole country will drown in blood, do you even think with your head? The emotionality of the Russian people overshadows any emotionality and the enemy, it does not matter who he is now a country, a neighbor, the region does not seem enough.
    Lobbying the interests of the company producing weapons, they do not care about the citizens they most importantly money.
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 27 September 2013 11: 00 New
      0
      Quote: Marrying
      READ OUT !!!
      We are not America, we will have executions regularly and with 100 corpses. The whole country will drown in blood, do you even think with your head? The emotionality of the Russian people overshadows any emotionality and the enemy, it does not matter who he is now a country, a neighbor, the region does not seem enough.
      Lobbying the interests of the company producing weapons, they do not care about the citizens they most importantly money.

      At the expense of the latter, I completely agree, at the expense of the first - only with REVEAL !!! - What kind of emotionality? we are not Spaniards or Mexicans, we are even far from our southern neighbors - such phlegm as we still look for - the Finns probably.
      Do not confuse drunken stupor with emotionality.
    2. jasper
      jasper 28 September 2013 08: 50 New
      0
      only the state with 2 exceptions produces weapons in our country, apparently you are against its interests for this?
      and judging by your post you consider all Russian degenerates? with 100%?
      so wake up, from Russophobia Zhenya !!! it's time !!!!
      1. Zhenya
        Zhenya 29 September 2013 17: 48 New
        -2
        Oh, yes, on the contrary, I am for the Russians and in general against Islam and "colleagues" from the CIS, but I will give an example that is banal to the point of madness.
        Your girlfriend / wife was beaten and robbed, she comes home, they say they say so and so, Tajiks went on and on and on, you have Ak, for example (everything is legal), rolls over emotions and not an instant in one queue you put a certain amount of these creatures, you will be accused of murder and racism, since you are Russian and you are by definition a racist (since a battered visitor is hooliganism, and a battered emigrant is racism) and they will give you an article for this, that is, you will not leave soon . I say again, there will be a lot of blood, very much, you can’t give weapons.
  • Icestar777
    Icestar777 27 September 2013 02: 35 New
    0
    A question with a background to those who believe that the presence of legalized firearms among the population can really protect this very population. First the background, then the question. Okay?))) It was a sunny summer day. A girl, about 16 years old, was walking along the street. She was walking home. The area was her home, she grew up in it. The street was deserted, not one passer-by. The road ran past a small square. At that moment a small company was resting in the park, rested according to all the rules with beer, vodka and neighing. Previously, she had not seen them there, otherwise she would have gone the other way. The group began to loudly call the girl to join, she ignored the call. She was a good girl, she did not get along with bad companies. Then the scumbag, most indignant at the ignorance, dashed across her and managed to intercept. He took out the barrel and poked her in the chest and said - "let's go, or I'll shoot you" .... ATTENTION QUESTION! What could a sixteen-year-old child, who does not have, elementary by age, the right to carry any weapon, oppose this moron? And the second question. How do you think she acted in this situation?
    1. Icestar777
      Icestar777 27 September 2013 10: 31 New
      0
      By the way, the story is absolutely real. And that was when there was no talk of officially arming citizens at all. And thank God, trunks were not all scumbags. If the law is adopted, then it is precisely the like that will be the first to arm themselves and will be pacing with it absolutely legally. Even without this, it’s scary to return from work in the evening.
      1. jasper
        jasper 28 September 2013 08: 54 New
        0
        are you naive or pretend to be scumbags with weapons are all right, turn to get the barrel is not a problem, and personally I do not get it as a law-abiding citizen
    2. lelikas
      lelikas 27 September 2013 11: 02 New
      0
      Did the girl go around Chernobyl? Sunny summer day and an empty street with a square?
      1. Icestar777
        Icestar777 27 September 2013 12: 44 New
        0
        Very funny ....... Not Chernobyl ....
    3. jasper
      jasper 28 September 2013 08: 53 New
      0
      dad. neighbor’s uncle, now in that case. people just pretend that nothing is happening, and believe the gopot is also coward and impudent only in the crowd and knowing that a person passing by will not reach the trunk and knock out their brains
  • gameover65
    gameover65 27 September 2013 05: 19 New
    +1
    article is good. only now it’s impossible to permit the sale of weapons. and it’s not about people, but about laws.
    we still have the unspoken rule of who shot, and that is to blame.
    plus there is no law under which you would be allowed to defend yourself. Now according to the law, you have no right to use weapons closer than 1 meter and did not preliminarily warn that you would shoot and without warning in the air. at home, weapons should be stored in a safe, disassembled and discharged.
    Well, why weapons under such laws? prisons fill up? I am personally for the weapon, but first you need to change the laws. and such articles only bring people to emotions. it is necessary to write and agitate people not for the fact that they require weapons, but for the right to defend themselves once the Ministry of Internal Affairs is not able to. under the USSR, weapons were required except for hunting.
  • intsurfer
    intsurfer 27 September 2013 06: 50 New
    0
    Quote: SlavaP
    And also ask our Israeli colleagues how many terrorist attacks were prevented because someone in the crowd was with a barrel and reacted.

    was in Israel, one of the employees of a local company constantly went with a gun on his side, and precisely to prevent the terrorist attack. But he had no right to get him to prevent any other crime. At least they explained it to us like that.
  • Clueless
    Clueless 27 September 2013 09: 29 New
    0
    It began for health, finished for peace. Yeah, let's give the Kalash people from the warehouses upon presentation of a driver’s license. Friends with the head? This is not a short barrel for you.
  • intsurfer
    intsurfer 27 September 2013 09: 33 New
    0
    Quote: Icestar777
    ATTENTION QUESTION! That a sixteen-year-old child who did not have, by elementary age, the right to bear any weapon could oppose this moron? And the second question. What do you think she did in this situation?

    Our area is not the most peaceful, my son is almost 16 and although he is under 180 cm, I still want to meet him from the subway when he returns from training. Because him to go past cafes, park and all sorts of compasses.
    1. Icestar777
      Icestar777 27 September 2013 09: 44 New
      0
      The area was calm, it was afternoon, the girl was returning from school, her parents were at work. And it was a relatively small city.
      1. lelikas
        lelikas 27 September 2013 11: 05 New
        +1
        Quote: Icestar777
        The area was calm, it was afternoon, the girl was returning from school, her parents were at work. And it was a relatively small city.

        But if there was a need - if there was a gun at all - he could come out against a girl with a bottle and with a knife and even with his bare hands - nothing would have changed. So the initial introduction is incorrect.
        1. Icestar777
          Icestar777 27 September 2013 12: 50 New
          0
          Quote: lelikas
          But if there was a need - if there was a gun at all - he could come out against a girl with a bottle and with a knife and even with his bare hands - nothing would have changed. So the initial introduction is incorrect.

          He could, but he had a gun, and he tried use it as an argument. He wouldn’t have a little fart, maybe he wouldn’t be so sure of himself?
          1. Icestar777
            Icestar777 27 September 2013 13: 19 New
            0
            Based on subsequent events, I can say for sure-WOULD NOT BE.