Military Review

Weapons and Empire

61
Weapons and Empire



Few remember that before the 1917 revolution weapon sold freely in hunting stores.

Mauzers, Nagans, Browings, Smith-Wessons, and here are the Parabellums. Ladies' models that fit in the women's handbag. "Velodogi" - revolvers for cyclists, for effective protection against dogs.

Without special troubles, it was possible to buy even the Maxim machine gun of Tula production ...

Let's open, for example, the Easter issue of Spark magazine, 1914 year. Peaceful pre-war spring. We read advertising.

Along with the advertisement of the “wonderful eau de cologne of Drallet”, the “Ferrotypia” photographic cameras and the “Anuzol” hemorrhoids - an advertisement for revolvers, pistols, and hunting rifles. And here is our old friend!

Browning sample 1906 g.


The magazine is especially advertised EXACTLY Browning. In the classic book of A. Zhuk "Small arms" the number of this model is 31-6. Production: Belgium, model 1906, caliber 6.35 mm. The weight is only 350 grams, but has 6 cartridges.

And what ammo! Cartridges were created specifically for this model. Bullet shell, smokeless powder (3 times more powerful than smoke). Such a cartridge was more powerful than a revolver cartridge of the same caliber.

The 1906 Browning Model was very successful. The size of the gun was only 11.4 x 5.3 cm and it easily fit in the palm of your hand. What else was needed for a safe trip to the market? Market traders before the revolution were armed.

It is not surprising that the concept of "racketeering" was absent in those days ...



Browning could be carried covertly - it was even placed in a vest pocket and a ladies' travel bag. Due to the low weight and low recoil, it was readily bought by women, and the name “ladies pistol” was firmly attached to it.

Browning has been a popular model among wide sections of Russian society for many years. Students, gymnasium students, female students, businessmen, diplomats, officers - even gardeners! - had it at hand.

Due to the low price, it was available even to schoolchildren, and teachers noted the “shoot because of unhappy love” among high-school students and students. Small caliber pistols were also called “suicide weapons”.

Large-caliber pistols carried the head like a pumpkin, and after a shot at Browning’s head, the deceased looked good in a coffin, which was supposed to lead to tears of repentance from an unfaithful traitor.

But Browning was not only dangerous for its owner.



It was an effective weapon of self-defense. A small-caliber shell bullet pierced a layer of muscles and stuck inside the body, completely giving it its energy. The level of medicine at the beginning of the twentieth century often prevented the rescue of a person affected in the internal organs.

Due to its compact size and its fighting qualities, the Browning 1906 model of the year was the most popular model. In total, more than 4 MILLION pieces were manufactured!

But how in tsarist times did they look at "exceeding the limits of necessary defense"? The term “necessary defense” itself first appeared in the decree of Paul I (which our citizens often represent almost half-crazy), and it meant not at all what we all got used to.

In the 18 century in Russia there was such a robbery - river piracy.

Gangs of vagrants attacked the river vessels sailing on the main rivers, and robbed them. Emperor Paul I adopted a decree on the rigorous deprivation of the nobility of all nobles, who were attacked on the rivers and did not offer armed resistance.

The nobles then, of course, were with swords and if they did not carry out the NECESSARY DEFENSE, they were deprived of this sword, as well as the manor and titles ...

Thanks to this formulation of the question, in a very short time the robbers were killed or fled and the robbery on the rivers stopped. That is, the necessary defense - it was the NECESSITY for the armed man to DEFEND.

No "limits" existed. In Soviet times, this useful concept was distorted, and if it occurs, it is only in the combination “EXCEEDING THE LIMITS of necessary defense”.

A criminal article was introduced for armed resistance to the robbers, and the weapon itself was taken from the population.

The Bolsheviks seized weapons from the population. For the complete "disarmament of the bourgeoisie", the Red Guard and Soviet militia teams worked a lot, conducting mass searches.

However, individual irresponsible "fists", as we see, were in no hurry to part with browning until the middle of the 30-s. And I understand them, beautiful and necessary thing ...

The pistol from the subject of everyday use since then turned into the USSR into a symbol of belonging to the security forces or the highest party elite. Caliber pistol was inversely proportional to the position in society. (The higher the official - the smaller the caliber of his gun.) ...

This Browning model was so popular that it gradually got out of circulation only with the creation of the Korovin pistol in 1926 year. Compared to Browning, his cartridge was strengthened and the barrel was slightly elongated, and the capacity of the magazine increased to 8 cartridges.



Interestingly, despite the small caliber, he enjoyed great success among the commanders of the Red Army.

And all that is left to the ordinary Russian man in the street, exhausted from street crime is looking at the pages of pre-revolutionary magazines with anguish.



«REVOLVER WITH 50 CARTRIDGES. ONLY 2 RUBLE. A safe and trustworthy weapon for self-defense, intimidation and alarm raising. It replaces expensive and dangerous revolvers. Strikingly hard beats. Needed by everyone. Permissions for this revolver are not required. 50 additional cartridges cost 75 kopecks, 100 pieces - 1 p. 40 cop., For sending by mail cash on delivery is calculated 35 cop., To Siberia - 55 cop. When ordering, the 3 pieces come with ONE REVOLVER for FREE. Address: Lodz, Slava O. Association "

In fairness, it must be said that there were some restrictions on the circulation of firearms:

1. Highest approved by Nicholas II, the Opinion of the State Council of 10 June 1900, "On the prohibition of the manufacture and import from abroad of firearms of samples used in the troops"

2. The highest resolution of the emperor "On the sale and storage of firearms, as well as explosives and the device of shooting ranges." Accordingly, customs restrictions on the import and export of firearms of military samples were tightened.

There were also secret circulars of the tsarist government, ordering local authorities to withdraw weapons from disloyal subjects at their discretion and taking into account the current situation.

Here is what Professor I.I. Tarasov, Professor of the Imperial Moscow University, wrote about the right of ordinary citizens to acquire, store and use civilian weapons in the Sketch of the Science of Police Law:

“Despite the undoubted danger of careless, inept and malicious use of weapons, the prohibition to have weapons in no way can be the general rule, but only the exception that occurs when:

1. unrest, indignation or rebellion give a good reason to fear that the weapon will be used for dangerous criminal purposes;

2. the special situation or condition of those persons, for example, minors and minors, crazy, hostile or warring tribes, etc., which give rise to such fear;

3. the past facts of careless or malicious use of weapons, ascertained by a court or otherwise, indicated the expediency of taking away weapons from these persons. ”

It is safe to say that in the Russian state, the right to a weapon was the inalienable right of every law-abiding and mentally healthy citizen; naturally, it was subject to some time and local restrictions.

Over time, this right has changed, responding to the needs of the era.



In the XIX - early XX centuries. giving citizens the right to weapons, their acquisition, possession and use can be considered as a progressive phenomenon, since at that time such a right did not exist in all countries.

Legislation in the process of evolution has developed a fairly rigid procedure for storing, carrying and acquiring firearms by citizens. From the 17th century, the right to bear arms was granted only to certain categories of persons.

At the beginning of the 20th century, they were persons whose weapons were part of their uniform (for example, police or gendarmes), who needed them in self-defense. To some, the carrying of weapons was necessarily by virtue of custom, not prohibited by law; in order to hunt or play sports.

With the development of firearms legislation began to divide it into types: military - non-military samples; rifled - smooth-bore; guns - revolvers, etc.

Thus, from 1649 to 1914, the year in the Russian state formed a harmonious legislative system, avoiding the extremes of permissiveness, on the one hand, and the universal ban, on the other.

Freedom as a state of society exists as long as possession of a weapon is recognized in it as a natural right. Society ceases to be free when the natural right to own weapons is replaced by the privilege granted by the state.

Since the time of the Roman Empire, the main difference between a slave and a free citizen, along with political rights, was the right to bear and use weapons - from a dagger under a tunic to a rifle in a barn or a pistol in a holster.

Incredible, but the fact is - for almost all of its stories the inhabitants of Russia were almost all armed (as, incidentally, the inhabitants of neighboring Europe), up to the middle of the 20 century.

People without weapons easily became prey for brigands on major roads or nomads at the borders, as well as wild animals. All had weapons, right down to the serfs.

As long as liberal journalism proceeded with bile about “wild Asian” and “serf slaves,” the “slaves” owned hunting rifles and edged weapons. No licenses and permits were required.

They freely carried weapons where it was dictated by local customs not prohibited by law - for example, in the Caucasus or in the places where the Cossacks lived, but this mainly concerned cold bladed weapons.

By the way, not only the local "mountain eagles" wore weapons freely in the Caucasus - the Russians, who came to the Caucasus, were carrying weapons almost without fail, not only daggers, but also pistols.

Weapon culture in Russia was very peculiar. She had very significant differences in the regions, there were also differences between town and country.

In the European part of Russia, revolvers and pistols were considered “master weapons” and for rural farming absolutely useless. Long-barreled rifled weapons were armed with “risky people” - hunters, Siberian explorers and Cossacks, these passionaries of that time had a rifle or a carbine in each house.

Another thing gun - a thing useful in all respects. Without a rifle, the driver, especially in the postal service, did not go on the road. Kabatchik kept him under the counter, with cartridges loaded with coarse salt. The watchman, keeping the master's good, used it. Pistols armed traveling doctors.

The right to acquire, possess and bear weapons was practically unlimited.

In the 17-18 centuries, the first acts began to appear, establishing the categories of subjects that could wield a weapon, and the further, the more these categories became.

Somewhere from the 19 century, in some regions of the Empire, the acquisition system formally became permissive - the governor-general or the mayor issued mentally healthy and law-abiding residents permission to purchase "non-combat" types of firearms (except for hunting, his possession was free).

They, in the presence of "extraordinary circumstances" (unrest, riots, as well as the specific facts of careless or malicious use of weapons), could deprive a person of weapons or introduce a special procedure for selling them, but only for the time being of these circumstances.

But in practice, weapons permits were received by all who applied, since at that time, the state did not yet suspect in every student a Marxist and a People's Folk, and in every officer - a Decembrist.

For violation of the regime of carrying a weapon, the Code of Law of the Russian Empire established responsibility, but the same Code minimized the cases of its use.

In addition, in the villages and rural settlements, where most of the population then lived, there were no gendarmes and officials at all, and every peasant considered it his duty to keep the gun from the burglars behind the stove.

Such liberalism, by the way, spawned a very ambiguous practice of duels. For hot students, young poets, proud officers and other nobles, it was never a problem to solve the men's dispute with the power of arms.

The government did not like this practice, which led to the prohibition of duels and strict punishment for participating in them, but never to the restriction of the right to arms.

Well-known pre-revolutionary Russian lawyers (Koni, Andreevsky, Urusov, Plevako, Aleksandrov) drew attention to the fact that the citizens of the Russian Empire very often used handguns for self-defense, defending the right to life, health, family and property.

Needless to say, most of the lawyers educated in the spirit of European freedoms directly supported the right of Russian people to freedom of arms.



In the cities up to 1906, “Nagan” or “Browning” could be purchased completely freely at an affordable price in 16 - 20 rubles (minimum monthly salary).

More advanced "Parabellum" and "Mauser" have already cost more than 40 rubles. There were cheap samples, for 2-5 rubles, however, they did not differ in special quality.

After the first Russian revolution began the removal of firearms. Now only the person who submitted for this purpose the nominal certificate (similar to the modern license), given out by the chief of local police had the right to buy the gun.

During the 1906 year alone, tens of thousands of revolvers and pistols acquired by the public before the adoption of the new rules were seized (in one Rostov 1137 “barrels” were seized).

But this campaign also affected only powerful pistols (over 150 J of muzzle energy) and military samples. Military-style rifles and carbines, in indigenous Russia, were also seized, including from "masters", except for prize and prize copies.

The “civilized public”, for hunting in the European part of Russia, was considered allowed as rifled single and double-barreled chokes or “tees”. Yes, and in the "outskirts of the Empire," people were still quite armed.

The exception was army officers and fleet, the ranks of the police and gendarmerie, border guards, as well as government bodies that had the right to acquire in personal ownership, for official needs, any small arms.

These "sovereigns" people could and were even obliged to use weapons for personal self-defense or the maintenance of public order and during off-duty hours. Upon retirement, these categories of civil servants retained the right to own weapons.

At the beginning of the century, when scientific and technological progress was gaining momentum, apartment buildings and hotels appeared in Russia in all respects modern, where there was hot water, elevators, telephones and refrigeration units.

Electricity covered not only apartments, rooms and entrances, but also the areas adjacent to new houses, where city trams briskly ran on electric power.



One type of personal self-defense weapon was a revolver with a hidden (half-hidden) trigger and a self-cocking trigger mechanism. The presence of the latter, as well as the compactness of such revolvers, made it possible to handle them with one hand. "



Armless pistols allowed a potential victim to use such weapons without long preparations. The fragile frightened and confused lady could hit the attacker without even damaging her manicure. However, there were various kinds of hybrids, quite successful and in demand.



Anatoly Koni, Ober-Prosecutor of the Criminal Cassation Department of the Governing Senate (highest prosecutor’s office), member of the State Council of the Russian Empire "On the right of necessary defense":

"A man has a sense of self-preservation. It is inherent in him both as being essentially moral and rational, and as the highest creature of the animal kingdom. This feeling is embedded in human nature so deeply that it almost never leaves; man strives for self-preservation on the one hand, instinctively, and on the other hand, conscious of their right to exist.

By virtue of the desire for self-preservation, the person tries to avoid danger and takes all measures to repel it; - he has a right to this and, moreover, a right that must be considered as inborn. Conscious of his right to exist, a person protects this right from any foreign encroachment, from any wrong. "

The most reliable weapon nevertheless was a revolver, a misfire of one cartridge, did not lead to the withdrawal of a revolver from a combat state, because the next time the trigger was pressed, another cartridge was fed. And the drums of small-caliber revolvers of the Velodog type could hold up to 20 cartridges:



In addition to hunting rifles, for the purchase of which in Russia, before 1917, no one and no one ever needed permits, there were also pistols, which in essence were edgings of one and double-barreled hunting rifles, both the most simple and stylized as vintage or combat pistols.

This is a very formidable weapon (some samples are able to completely smash the attacker head), along with hunting rifles, was in demand from those who did not want to burden themselves with a hike to the police station or because of the specifics of the work passed it to, for example, The seller who handed over to another:



Almost all the coachmen and car owners under the seat lay such a gun or a cheaper, but no less effective domestic counterpart, an abundance of which provided all sorts of artels and partnerships that did not need advertising because of their cheapness.

And in addition to low prices, the State Imperial Tula Arms Plant (ITOZ) also provided high quality thanks to constant research and testing.

But guns camouflaged as a cane and pistols (some models also required no permits at all) could always be in hand and ready for use. To catch a host of such weapons unawares is very difficult even for an experienced robber:



In the pragmatic Russian peasantry, as a rule, domestic hunting rifles enjoyed the greatest demand, and besides the always-needed practical benefits, they also provided an excellent guarantee against any encroachment from the uninvited guests.

The price-quality ratio put the famous State Imperial Tula Arms Plant out of competition, on the free Russian market of civilian weapons. These are the "economy class", but of excellent quality and reliability of the gun, offered even expensive capital gun salons:





(ITOZ) The Imperial Tula Arms Plant offered more expensive, but not less reliable and affordable rifles. What man or teenager would not like to receive as a gift such an excellent and beautiful domestic gun ?:



And so began the state control over the quality of products, in particular weapons, which was kept at the highest level until the 1917 year:



It can be said with confidence that the traditionally high quality of Russian weapons and the strictest responsibility for the state stigma were laid by the Russian tsars.

By the way, lovers of pony and moan about constantly offended unarmed and defenseless peasants and lie to the landowners, capitalists, other "evil exploiters" and officials about the patronage of the Russian tsars, I advise you to pay attention to the punishment of these groups of people, and how the punishment was reduced according to with lowering the rank of a responsible person and vice versa ...

I also want to draw attention to the fact that almost all serious trading establishments provided buyers with installment payments, if they had a guarantee (letter of guarantee, income certificate) of military commanders for military personnel or an employer for civilians.



Naturally, with the advent of 1917, the beginning of mass desertion from the front, the weakening of the government, control over the arming of citizens decreased significantly. In addition, the soldiers leaving the hateful war often returned home with rifles and pistols, and even with some heavy things.

Thus, the total armament of Russians during the Civil War contributed not only to the bloodshed, but also to the self-defense of the people of Russia from numerous gangs, as well as, for example, the expulsion of the invaders and the wider partisan war against Kolchak in Siberia without any Red Army.

An interesting moment - after the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks were able to immediately gain a foothold only in the central provinces of Russia, whose population was armed less than in the Caucasian and Cossack margins.

The harsh actions of the conscripts did not encounter any resistance only in central Russia, but of them people were most willing to go into the Red Army — the weapon returned a sense of freedom.

Having seized power, the Bolsheviks tried to limit the right to own weapons by imposing a corresponding ban in the Criminal Code. However, the RSFSR Criminal Code 1926 of the year contained a completely ridiculous sanction at the time - half a year of correctional labor or a fine of up to one thousand rubles with confiscation of weapons.

In 1935, imprisonment was established until 5 years, when the situation in the world became more complicated, and in the country various terrorists were operating, the “organs” actually turned a blind eye to the violation of this article.

Plus, this did not apply to hunting weapons. Smooth-bore guns, berdank, "melkashki" were sold and kept completely free, like fishing rods or garden tools. To purchase them, you had to present a hunting ticket.

Here it is important to understand that the Bolsheviks did not ban, but simply transferred possession of weapons to another plane. And the “tightening of the screws” was compensated by the free circulation of hunting weapons and the general militarization of civilian life.

In addition, the majority of civilian passionaries of that time — factory managers, party commissioners, and all politically important people, all the way to the collective farm foremen, had a gun in their hands and could open fire on those who seemed to be a gangster or a terrorist.



During the period of constant tension on the borders, weapons in general were an inalienable attribute of tens of millions of people living in threatened territories.

And, for example, “excesses on the ground” during collectivization immediately met with adequate armed resistance, which was one of the reasons for the course adjustment and the recognition of “dizziness with success.”

The operational reports of the NKVD departments of that time are full of reports about how the peasants met with ruthless shooting especially zealous “collectivisers”.

After the 1953 year, there was a legislative easing of the procedure for the circulation of weapons among the population. So the citizens were granted the right to freely acquire in the trading organizations a hunting smooth-bore weapon without "problems" with hunting tickets.

At the same time, a group of lawyers of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR prepared the first bill on weapons. According to him, "trustworthy citizens" (as in tsarist time, loyal to the regime) were supposed to be allowed to acquire firearms, including short-barreled, on personal property rights.

It was supposed to sell weapons withdrawn from armaments to citizens (except for automatic ones), as well as trophy and lend-lease ones (no limitations on the power of the ammunition used were planned).

The law was approved by almost all instances, except for one, the most important one. By the end of the 50's, the “nuts” came to the starting position.

That all changed at the end of the 1960s. The free possession of even hunting weapons was banned and the requirements of hunting tickets were restored. Since then, no one except the police and military could not freely own a weapon.

The weapon has become a privilege of the police and security officers. For an ordinary citizen, even a hunting rifle meant a humiliating "circulation of information." A campaign for the delivery of the “Okhotinimum” began, which resulted in a police licensing system.

And the number of policemen increased five times.
Author:
Originator:
http://mgsupgs.livejournal.com/748424.html
61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. avt
    avt 23 October 2013 09: 29
    17
    good good good All the author needs to say. I can add just a little - “The Bolsheviks confiscated weapons from the population.” ----- and even classical English boxing could only be practiced in the sports society “Dynamo”, then the truth was also allowed in others.
    1. vladimirZ
      vladimirZ 23 October 2013 11: 24
      +8
      "The Bolsheviks seized weapons from the population"


      After the Civil War of 1917-1922, the seizure of weapons from the people was justified. Banditry, the widespread resolution of any issues with firearms was everywhere. A person’s life was not worth anything, blood poured everywhere.
      The country's leadership with the most severe measures "removed" those who are accustomed to the blood of peasants from the life of the state, otherwise they could not be stopped. Read the chronicle of those years.
      At the present time, the situation is different, the weapon of self-defense, in the conditions of the flourishing of crime, has the right to be.
      But not everyone, from the access list should be excluded mentally ill, previously convicted of articles related to violence, banditry, terrorism, etc., who did not serve or did not reach the age of 20.
      Weapons should be registered, but without the use of current bureaucratic delays, forcing people to get licenses for 2-3 months every 5 years. And the storage of self-defense weapons, hunting weapons at home, in general, should be allowed without a license, only registered with the sales documents.
      The export of self-defense weapons outside the region where they are registered, in the conditions of the current lawlessness and the influx of "leaving" from the Caucasus, should be temporarily prohibited.
      1. Dezzed
        Dezzed 23 October 2013 19: 26
        -2
        Yes. and there are already tambovs, who are handy to the valiant Chekists in the monopoly to have weapons. so that people blather less.
      2. POBEDA
        POBEDA 24 October 2013 09: 41
        +1
        True, but with limitations! Residents of the North Caucasus are strictly forbidden to have weapons, including cold weapons. 10 years in prison. Motivate this as a temporary measure, in connection with a turbulent situation, until further notice. Foreign citizens categorically ban weapons.
      3. Gladiatir-zlo
        Gladiatir-zlo 4 November 2013 21: 12
        0
        Ay ah, international Jewish terrorists plunged the country into bloody chaos, and then they saved it at the cost of their precious lives. Not funny, do not confuse cause and effect.
    2. Max_Bauder
      Max_Bauder 24 October 2013 17: 02
      +2
      I look at the past with longing. My ancestors were warriors. I have no weapons whatsoever that I could protect myself, relatives, other good people in case of danger. = (
      1. SAFON 1
        SAFON 1 12 November 2013 08: 03
        0
        So be a man! Do not whine, but get a weapon!
  2. 505506
    505506 23 October 2013 09: 36
    35
    I never understood, at the age of 18, after a medical commission (which was formal in the 80s), you were given a machine gun, a tank, and a "bald man", and after two or three (depending on the type of troops) , you must prove that you have the right to own a smooth-bore weapon, and if you succeed, then in five years and a rifled one. What transformations (according to officials) have occurred with the former soldier, sailor?
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 23 October 2013 12: 05
      -6
      Quote: 505506
      What transformations (according to officials) occurred with the former soldier, sailor?
      If a person was allowed to print money at Goznak, worked there for many years, perhaps he could create his own "mint" at home? In the army, a person is under oath, in the service of the Fatherland to protect him from an external enemy, in the militia (police) to protect him from an internal one. These functions have been delegated to them so that other people can live a peaceful life, do their own thing. Sign a contract for the Caucasus, go to the criminal offense to work, will you be happy with military weapons, what's the problem? Shops are bursting with weapons, multiple shotguns and rifled weapons with optics, what's the problem? The tsar was remembered in the article that they did not remember serfdom ... Collectors wear bulletproof vests and with machine guns, but they are attacked, do not be afraid of weapons, do you believe that it will help in case of an unexpected attack, will solve the problem? The problem is different, and it cannot be solved with weapons, it is necessary to change society, morality, and raise culture. Most likely, the arms lobby and our overseas "friends" will achieve their goal, push through the laws. Be patient, there is little to wait.
      1. Uncle
        Uncle 23 October 2013 13: 53
        +6
        Quote: Per se.
        need to change society, morality, improve culture.

        Judging by the spiritual decay of the nation, which is evident in large cities, in the moral sense, we have not gone far from the Roman Empire. I doubt that in general a general increase in culture is possible, for many, it, culture, is simply not needed. They have enough of a TV, for many this is culture.
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 23 October 2013 17: 27
        +8
        Quote: Per se.
        In the army, a man under oath, in the service of the Fatherland to protect him from an external enemy, in the police (police) to protect from internal.

        And what is the Oath taken with the service weapon upon dismissal? Well, in the bypass sheet when dismissing, you still didn’t enter marks on the passing of conscience in the kit? Brains and skills, probably also in weapons, are kept under guard lol
        Quote: Per se.
        Collectors wear bulletproof vests and machine guns, but they are attacked, not afraid of weapons,

        And while armed to the teeth. What, just before the attack in the nearest store bought? Or, nevertheless, the one who VERY NEEDS (most often for illegal purposes) ALWAYS finds several trunks for himself, without straining.
        Stores are bursting with an abundance of weapons, multiple shotguns and rifles with optics, what's the problem?
        Yes, even if they break, at such prices. What on the trunks, what on the annual requisitions from the owners. Well, I’m not a hunter, the wild animals didn’t do ANYTHING for me. And from hunger I don’t die, to live and to feed my family from hunting
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 23 October 2013 19: 20
          +2
          Quote: Misantrop
          And what is the Oath taken with the service weapon upon dismissal?
          I will answer you this way, remember the film "The Meeting Place Cannot Be Changed", where Gleb Zheglov explained to Volodya Sharapov the difference between an enemy at the front and a bandit in civilian life? At the front, proof of the enemy's guilt is not required, there is a war, in civilian life the last bastard, nevertheless, a citizen of the Soviet Union, and only a court can prove his guilt. Do not confuse the right to self-defense and the right to lynching, military weapons do not have a sporting and hunting status, the legalization of the status of military weapons, this is the legalization of the right to shoot to kill, without trial and investigation, at personal discretion and understanding the degree of threat to a civilian. You are an officer, a submariner, I personally have nothing against you, but with legalization, military weapons can be bought not only by sailors, good people, but also outright scum, cowards, renegades. Morality cannot be measured by reference, and all sorts of people will receive weapons with the right to use them. Do you think I don’t like weapons, I don’t know how to use them? I love and know how, but you need to think not only about your own skin, indulging your pride and whim, there is our country, our children, and looking back at the States here is not the best for Russia. More and more in the media people are being told the need to arm themselves, attracting the necessary arguments, distorting the problem. Some scribblers work off their silversmiths from the customer, others pour out good impulses. I will tell you my opinion, for self-defense there are already enough weapons, if a person is not enough at home with three shotguns with a pair of rifled carbines, gas and traumatic pistols in the "collection", then this is, if not a clinic, then a bull's whim. Military weapons could be allowed to have and be worn by employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, officers of the army and navy (with the obligation to contribute to the protection of law and order), as well as during the revival of the Cossacks, those who would receive land for agricultural use, for the development of distant regions and the protection of our borders.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Misantrop
            Misantrop 23 October 2013 22: 54
            +6
            Quote: Per se.
            when legalized, military weapons can be bought not only by sailors, good people, but also by frank scum, cowards, renegades. You cannot measure morality by reference, and all sorts of people will receive weapons with the right to use them.
            Unfortunately, all the categories you have listed are already armed. The son of Dzhemilev shot a farm laborer from a combat sniper. And the most aggressive of them - for sure. Near my house is a Tatar self-capture village. So, shots there at night from military weapons (by ear I will not confuse them) weapons are not at all uncommon. And the police there after sunset do not poke around, is fraught ...

            Unfortunately, all good attempts to protect society from any threats have always ended only in the infantilism of those who are being protected. This is the same as forbidding a child to walk out of fear that he might fall. If he obeys, he will grow up with a disability ...
            Quote: Per se.
            the last bastard on a citizen, nevertheless a citizen of the Soviet Union, and only a court can prove his guilt
            Yeah. This is despite the fact that now almost ALL speak in plain text about the unprecedented venality of the court and its representatives. It is from THEM that we will wait for justice? Fresh example. In Primorsky (near Feodosia), a guy accidentally heard a young mother discussing with her grandmother the idea of ​​selling her child to Germany for organs. As an honest man, he told the police, they started an operation with a setup (the same guy was offered to act as an intermediary when buying a child). He agreed. The operation has passed. Mom and her grandmother are still being tried (the process is not completed), but this guy’s car, which he (at the prompting of the police) offered as an advance payment, was selected by another decision of the same court ... in favor of these, who had not yet been convicted. Now in Feodosia, the public is unfolding about this scandal, today's news. You are THESE judges want to hand your fate? I do not advise... what
            if three shotguns with a pair of rifled carbines, gas and traumatic pistols in the "collection" are not enough for a person at home, then this is, if not a clinic, then a bull's whim
            Excuse me, but who can afford IT now? Especially - at current prices and salaries? I’ll answer it myself - just the one who, in case of the unlawful use of all this arsenal will be bought off without any problems, will not even start a business. And those whom you care so much about, like - only as targets. And here they are hoping for a fair trial - like summer snow in the Crimea ...
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 24 October 2013 08: 48
              -1
              Quote: Misantrop
              The son of Dzhemilev shot a farm laborer from a combat sniper.
              Oddly enough, you actually do not contradict me, but complement what I am trying to say. Tomorrow laws will be dragged through, legalizing the right of such Dzhemilev to shoot people on legal grounds, do you doubt that there will be no lawyers and "witnesses" that he "defended himself"? If you or I shoot the insolent bourgeois, we will be to blame. Now at stake is not only a fat jackpot on arms sales, new super profits from the sale of Soviet freebies from warehouses, the import of foreign weapons into our market, but also the convenient status of the use of weapons by new khazyaevs of life. You yourself are talking about the venality of judges, but you seem to believe that ordinary people will change something if they buy a gun. To the problem with bandits, we will simply get a problem with armed civilians, with mistakes, accidents, showdowns in restaurants and at crossroads, where instead of a banal massacre, shooting to kill will be added. For me, it’s better to have a new "White Arrow", and soak scum through the dark streets, as Zhukov organized in post-war Odessa, but this should be done by the pros, not civilian "avengers". It is necessary to disarm the bandits, imprison corrupt officials, corrupt officials, force the law enforcement forces to work, and not engage in "self-medication" of society, instead of the state. I don’t know if you were a communist while serving in the navy, submariners are especially reliable people, but you must understand from a human point of view that under socialism there was no problem with arming society, so it was not a matter of possessing short-barreled weapons. The end of gangster capitalism will come, everything will fall into place.
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 24 October 2013 10: 05
                +3
                Quote: Per se.
                I don’t know if you were a communist while serving in the navy, submariners were especially reliable people, but you need to understand humanly that under socialism this problem did not arise with the arming of society, which means that it was not about owning short-barreled weapons.
                Even now I have not thrown out my party card, it lies with the account card. He took it when the political department was dispersed. But I only remember that my grandfather, a medical doctor, kept his gun at home, his father was in a gun (after moving to the Crimea, when he began to serve in the Baltic States, they were forbidden to appear without weapons on the street), and I never even did not hold in hands. So he lay in the ship's arsenal, stood guard on duty with weapons on duty. And there was more order on the street at the time of my grandfather than later, when I was a kid (and, especially, when I grew up). And it all ended with the collapse of the country, when the population weaned and weaned to defend themselves and demand the observance of their rights, stupidly took this country away. The mentality has changed ... request It’s clear that now many people will object in unison that the presence of a barrel in your pocket and the right to shoot in all directions will not add to the order. And they will even be right in some ways. It’s just that this rightness doesn’t cancel the fact that the modern citizen has the ONLY right to try to hire a lawyer (if there is something, for that). EVERYTHING, there are NO more rights for the population. request
                Quote: Per se.
                Tomorrow they will drag laws legalizing the right of such a Dzhemilev to shoot people already legally
                These laws and possibilities are ALREADY NOW. It was in accordance with them that the Dzhemilev clan actually evaded responsibility. And that is characteristic, now the shooting is ONE side, in ours. It is from the realization of its FULL impunity
          3. SAFON 1
            SAFON 1 12 November 2013 08: 16
            0
            Quote: Per se.
            when legalized, military weapons can be bought not only by sailors, good people, but also by frank scum, cowards, renegades. You can’t measure morality by reference, and all sorts of people will receive weapons with the right to use it
            Remember your Zheglov - the citizens of Russia are not a priori scum and bastards - this must be proved in court. Do not write what you think, think what you write!
          4. The comment was deleted.
          5. SAFON 1
            SAFON 1 12 November 2013 08: 29
            0
            Quote: Per se.
            Military weapons could be allowed and worn by officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, army and navy officers (with an obligation to promote law enforcement), as well as when the Cossacks were revived, those who would receive land for agricultural use, for developing distant regions and protecting our borders.
            There are no labor or household weapons - all firearms can cause death, i.e. you trust the officer of the army and navy to kill the people, but not to protect the citizens.
            Quote: Per se.
            when legalized, military weapons can be bought not only by sailors, good people, but also by frank scum, cowards, renegades
            A priori, do you think the Russian Grajans are just that? But what about Zheglov’s quotes? You already decide and think what to write, it is still useful to re-read and edit the text.
      3. 505506
        505506 24 October 2013 02: 09
        +2
        If a person was allowed to print money at Goznak, worked there for many years, perhaps he could create his own "mint" at home?

        N-yes ... In the elderberry garden, and the beer is warm ...
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 24 October 2013 10: 17
          +2
          Quote: 505506
          Perhaps you can create your own "mint" at home?
          Perhaps, remember, during the time of "stagnation", during one of the raids, the police discovered a hoard with a large number of new-made coins copying the gold Nikolaev chervontsy. And then I had to work for a VERY long time, digging out the channels for the supply of raw materials (gold), since there was NOTHING to present to those who were taken with the coins. For the simple reason that the quality of the gold was even higher than that of the original coins. That is, these remakes were full-fledged product. And what you and I used to call "money", in fact, are not, they do not have an INDEPENDENT value, being just a form of guarantee of the financial system of the state for a certain (indicated on them) amount. The state (or a private owner, as in the USA) represented by the financial system only GUARANTEES that this piece of paper can get a certain share of material wealth, no more request
          Naturally, third-party copying not your guaranteesis nothing more than a con
          1. SAFON 1
            SAFON 1 12 November 2013 08: 34
            0
            The Bank of Russia does just that, it has quietly separated from the state and lives according to its own laws. To the treasury spit !!!
      4. Misantrop
        Misantrop 24 October 2013 17: 18
        0
        Quote: Per se.
        Sign a contract for the Caucasus, go to the criminal work, will you be happy with military weapons, what's the problem?
        At a minimum, in the fact that, together with these weapons, you will get a boss who sold for the most cowards, forcing you to turn these weapons to the protection of fellow citizens who do not need it, but the next freak who paid the boss ...
      5. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 4 November 2013 21: 32
        -1
        And you, I apologize, took the oath to the checkpoint back, how did you get out? Then it is clear...
    2. Syrdon
      Syrdon 23 October 2013 16: 49
      +6
      I agree completely, served 10 years in the law enforcement system, had the right to carry the barrel, on business trips they gave me an assault rifle, and in general what my heart desires, but how I resigned like that. It's a shame however.))
    3. воронов
      воронов 23 October 2013 19: 50
      0
      Quote: 505506
      medical commission (which was formal in 80's),

      It is interesting in what kind of small neighborhood did you go through it, where was it formal?
      1. 505506
        505506 24 October 2013 01: 51
        0
        The Central Military Commissariat of Komsomolsk-on-Amur. The draft medical commission, 1989. And I think there were not a few of them, I did not care about the real state of health, recruits were needed. And whom only in the service did not meet. And in 91 dystrophics, since hello served.
      2. SAFON 1
        SAFON 1 12 November 2013 08: 49
        0
        The Kraivoenkomat of Vladivostok in 1978 issued a slider - each doctor had a stamp "HEALTHY", which he spanked into the slider before examination. The inspection itself took 5-6 seconds. Flat-footed people with scaliosis and perforated stomach ulcers also came to the service, drug addicts and alcoholics were out of the question.
  3. Forest
    Forest 23 October 2013 09: 49
    -2
    “Everything changed at the end of the 1960s. The free possession of even hunting weapons was prohibited and the requirements for hunting tickets were restored. Since then, no one except the police and the military could freely own weapons.” - In the 70s there were no policemen.
    The whole article about the "bloody gebne" veiled by a story about weapons before the revolution.
  4. Orik
    Orik 23 October 2013 10: 20
    14
    An essential point is the interpretation of defense rules with the use of weapons. Pavlovsky demands forced them to swear, later recognized the inalienable right to defense without restrictions. Now it’s easier to get a term for excess when using weapons.
    1. Uncle
      Uncle 23 October 2013 13: 54
      +7
      Quote: Orik
      Now it’s easier to get a term for excess when using weapons.

      Now they will punish a policeman earlier than a bandit.
      1. anomalocaris
        anomalocaris 23 October 2013 19: 20
        +3
        What does the police have to do with it? I do not observe a special difference between policemen and bandits point blank. But for self-defense, even if without weapons, an ordinary citizen may not be hooked at all. I myself have experience ...
      2. Savva30
        Savva30 23 October 2013 20: 15
        +1
        Now they are punished according to the principle: whoever complained first is right ...
    2. Revolver
      Revolver 23 October 2013 23: 15
      +3
      Quote: Orik
      An essential point is the interpretation of defense rules with the use of weapons. Pavlovsky demands forced them to swear, later recognized the inalienable right to defense without restrictions. Now it’s easier to get a term for excess when using weapons.

      The trend however ...

      - Rabinovich, why do you want to leave this country?
      - I do not like the attitude to homosexuality.
      “Are you one of these?”
      - No. I do not like the trend. Under Stalin, they were shot for this; under Brezhnev, they planted them. Now this is the norm. I still want to have time to get down before they make it mandatory.
  5. VARCHUN
    VARCHUN 23 October 2013 10: 25
    22
    In some European countries, the free sale of firearms and criminality decreased by 80%, I can tell you why the authorities do not allow people to arm themselves. Then there will be no MAJORS, STEPS, TURNEYS IN CHARGES AND OL, and for deputies who should have been hanging on poles for a long time I’m silent in general. They are the first to vote to ban.
  6. Misantrop
    Misantrop 23 October 2013 10: 50
    18
    The article encroaches on the most HOLY right of an official - the right to ALLOW (for a certain fee, of course). lol Surprisingly, the very idea that a person has the right to live can be frightening in appearance to adults and established people. And protect this right from those who encroach on it. Ah, they will start shooting ... But now they are not shooting? Or is the country legalized the turnover of explosives and detonators that explosions in public places are not silent?
    1. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 4 November 2013 21: 45
      0
      Although belated comments, I have not read this article yet, as I have missed it. There is a study of the American Rifle Association, a psychological portrait ... of the prohibition. There are enough psychologists in this association, and generally amusing guys. Awesome research actually. Alas, I did not copy it to the computer, and that the links to the really entertaining materials of that ... go out quickly, I noticed later. In short, a person who is truly standing in the way of gun ownership is still a neurotic, up to a serious diagnosis ....
  7. Massik
    Massik 23 October 2013 11: 18
    +7
    Oh, the holy times are over, when a gun or a carbine could simply be written out by mail. Yes, the liberals in the first year had such an opportunity, they will shoot almost the entire criminal element, half of the bureaucrats and the "leaders of the people" will be afraid to shoot straight across the highway with flashing lights, just like you fool people. Not in the subject, but now there is no desire to support the domestic manufacturer because of the ugly bored grooves and a pin in the barrel, but how would the budget be enriched, they put on sale their many unnecessary millions of machines.
  8. makarov
    makarov 23 October 2013 11: 45
    +3
    add a little addition. In the Republic of Ingushetia, for some foreigners (for example, Poland), there were also restrictions on the purchase of ammunition. This concerned, for example, black powder, (from memory) no more than 3 kg was dispensed.
    I would like to say about the legality of possession of combat weapons of a large part of military units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In fact, AK, PM, SVD, and others (as well as the bulk of the ammunition for them) are MILITARY weapons, which are intended to repel aggression from the outside.
    Alas, practically no police weapons and ammunition exist for them, as well as methods for its development, that is, research and development.
    1. DDA
      DDA 23 October 2013 12: 26
      +6
      The possession of weapons and their lawful use to protect themselves, family, property and other citizens is the same inalienable right of a free person as life, freedom, property. Yes, it is necessary to develop legal norms that follow this requirement, it is necessary to distinguish between the functionality and ammunition for weapons from army, police and civilian ones, and not to indulge in thoughts tormenting people with doubts.
  9. Spstas1
    Spstas1 23 October 2013 12: 33
    +6
    Somehow, by itself, I remembered the story of the attempt to arrest Marshal Budyonny, when the NKVD task force sent for this was put in the grass at gunpoint (in other cases, they say under fire) of a machine gun (or machine guns) that had been stored in advance by a thrifty marshal in his country house (again discrepancies in different sources). And that the higher authorities of the Lubyanka tearfully begged I.V.S. cancel the order because: "He will shoot everyone! Have mercy !! ..." The arrest order was canceled, but he asked Semyon Mikhailovich to hand over the machine guns. Budyonny fulfilled the request, and in response to the frightened look of the orderly grinned: "I still have it."
    So, as they say - weapons to the masses!
    1. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 4 November 2013 21: 52
      +1
      Stalin didn’t cancel his orders from ten lines. Not that it was a man if you did not pay attention. That was the humor of the situation - Stalin did not give an order for arrest at all. But to stop the situation, after Budenny's call, he instantly stopped. According to some reports, Stalin asked about the noise in the phone, and Budyonny answered without hesitation - I’m fighting! And then Stalin began to figure out who he was so proactive - Budyonny had to be arrested ... And yes, he asked for machine guns. Provided Budyonny security otherwise.
  10. creak
    creak 23 October 2013 12: 41
    +6
    The article was written competently, curious information, to the author plus. It’s not a weapon that kills, but a person ... How many crimes are committed, for example, with kitchen knives, axes and baseball bats ... And crime has never experienced a shortage of firearms, despite all the prohibitions and restrictions, especially in our time (like says, any whim for your money) ...
  11. Avenger711
    Avenger711 23 October 2013 13: 46
    +3
    After the Civilian weapon, not guns or hunting rifles, but quite military, it was higher than the roof in the country, with the people very brutal over the years of the wars, it simply makes no sense to compare that era with the modern one. At the same time, those who needed to have weapons, they had, in fact, the industrialization of many areas began with the issuing to the person in charge of a gun, documents for receiving money from the State Bank and a letter to local authorities demanding assistance. Well, the times were turbulent, there were also enough terrorists.

    In general, the complex of disgruntled and embittered went to pour out again, to whom give AK, so they will kill everyone.
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 24 October 2013 21: 50
      0
      Quote: Avenger711
      In general, the complex of disgruntled and embittered went to pour out again, to whom give AK, so they will kill everyone.
      And if you don’t interrupt, but beat off family lives from non-fulfilling laws and their consequences in the eggs of Gaster, ethnic groups, menjlis and teips, we can get in, so that they don’t get out of the windows, to be sure.
      I believe that the actions of the former should be assessed by the police, their actions should be assessed by the jurisdiction, and the methods and canons of justice should be chosen by the electorate (people). And in our country, the electorate is going smoothly, never failed good but with the will of simple Russians (not not with GAZPROM and Sechka), but shobtak-sit down and talk, this is not there. The people arm themselves and that’s all.
  12. qwertynsan
    qwertynsan 23 October 2013 14: 19
    0
    Colt equalizes everyone right? I don’t remember who said that ..
  13. understudy
    understudy 23 October 2013 14: 29
    +1
    Quote: vladimirZ
    The export of self-defense weapons outside the region where they are registered, in the conditions of the current lawlessness and the influx of "leaving" from the Caucasus, should be temporarily prohibited.


    I will subscribe for this with both my right and left hand.
    1. alex-cn
      alex-cn 23 October 2013 15: 11
      +1
      And if I went hunting from Sverdlovsk to the Chelyabinsk region? I have to carry a shotgun disassembled and in a case, what if they start to take away? even gas cover up ...
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 23 October 2013 18: 55
        +5
        Quote: alex-cn
        if I went hunting from Sverdlovsk to the Chelyabinsk region?
        Region and region are still different concepts. Now, if you are going to hunt from the Chelyabinsk region to Stavropol, then you really need to discharge the long-barrels (game is unlikely to be caught along the way). And for self-defense, the short-barrel should be legalized.

        But comments like:
        Quote: Per se.
        Collectors wear bulletproof vests and machine guns, but they are attacked, not afraid of weapons
        Well, are the newborns attacking? He was born, spat out a pacifier and went to rob collectors? Or is it a mug is growing with the awareness that around him, so beautiful of himself, is only an unarmed and defenseless herd, suitable only as a victim. And one has only to feel ABOVE (get a barrel, don't give a damn about conventions and Criminal Code) - and you can begin to "reign". Around - some suckers, and with a bag of money - the same sucker, to whom the trunk is given occasionally and under the list. So he himself is afraid of him, not like shooting back from a tough macho ...
  14. Ch0sen1
    Ch0sen1 23 October 2013 14: 49
    +8
    Arguments like "weapons should not be allowed, because then the criminals will arm themselves," one might think that now the bandits are being held back from acquiring guns ...
  15. Altona
    Altona 23 October 2013 18: 14
    +6
    I liked the article, the illustrations are gorgeous ... However, there were weapons, pistols for 40 rubles plus or minus ... And of any size and design ... I am also for the legalization of civilian weapons, because the offender is always armed, and many have legal weapons crusts, especially from the Caucasian regions ... Well, you are just a target ... I think that much would have changed if our citizens had weapons ... In the United States, citizens have the right to even overthrow the government with weapons in their hands, and we even we cannot protect ourselves and do not have the right ...
  16. washi
    washi 23 October 2013 18: 52
    +4
    An interesting moment - after the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks were able to immediately gain a foothold only in the central provinces of Russia, whose population was armed less than in the Caucasian and Cossack margins.
    Bummer from this theory.
    The Cossacks announced their independence and the creation of Cossack republics. We fought against everyone until their “whites” were equalized, and then the “reds” did not calm down.
    The Bolsheviks seized power in almost the entire country, because "temporary" got everyone.
    Siberia as it was and remains the basis of the empire. Didn't care about the showdown in the capital, until the gentlemen (the so-called nobles) and the Cossacks began to slave the inhabitants of Siberia. After the answer went. As a result, from the Urals to the Far East, where there was an American-Japanese occupation, the "Reds" went on foot and without fighting. (I have not heard about collective farms in Siberia either. There were state farms)
    Restrictions on personal weapons began to be made after 1953. STALIN TRUSTED HIS PEOPLE.
    Now it is possible to allow the free carrying of weapons, but this means a change in the political course of the country.
    Who wants to kill Chubais?
    Who wants to dunk Serdyukov?
    etc.
  17. maklaut007
    maklaut007 23 October 2013 19: 04
    +2
    The most important trifle, weapons were banned, and Melitsia became FIVE times more. Today, Yaroslavna just cry about the lack of normal people to serve in the organs. Well, remove the stsuki weapons prohibitions. And the problem will disappear. Together with odious officials, thieves, drug dealers and other scum. Today, by administrative means, liberoids hold a huge bias towards evil. Apparently evil brings a lot of money. And in a shabby society, money is the main thing.
  18. fat frumos
    fat frumos 23 October 2013 19: 23
    +3
    5 points article! History repeats itself, now in the Caucasus and in Transnistria there are so many weapons of military standard that it is possible to arm Mongolia
  19. berimor
    berimor 23 October 2013 20: 00
    +1
    "..." small pieces "were sold and stored completely freely, like fishing rods or garden tools."
    Remember the movie "Volunteers".
    The period of events at Halkin Gol is shown. There, Akishin brings as a gift to the elementary school student, the son of his friends, the small caliber TOZ.
  20. Ch0sen1
    Ch0sen1 23 October 2013 20: 19
    +2
    Quote: voronov
    Quote: 505506
    medical commission (which was formal in 80's),

    It is interesting in what kind of small neighborhood did you go through it, where was it formal?


    And where did you see the informal medical commission at the military registration and enlistment office? As popular wisdom says: the only doctor who believes that a person is healthy works in the military enlistment office. wink
    Why am I being fit for military service without limitation while being unfit for my health in the police? what

    Yes, and the current medical board that is right, that the weapon is a complete formality, the main thing is that it should be paid to the cashier ....
  21. uzer 13
    uzer 13 23 October 2013 20: 23
    0
    The author should be thanked for the good work, especially for the retrospective review of Soviet-Russian weapons problems. In the 50s and 60s, hunting weapons were sold almost freely, without any involvement of the police in this process, simply by a hunting ticket, which could be issued in half an hour even with my father’s passport (which I did at one time) Gunpowder and cartridges were sold in the same company of hunters.
    Everyone had hunting weapons without exception, even the last alcoholic. And this is why they didn’t shoot each other, and no one got a gun at any disassembly. The groundless difficulties of acquiring hunting weapons by the population led to the fact that they practically ruined the production enterprises who produced these weapons, and the quality and culture of production fell sharply. And the crime rate did not begin to decline (to put it mildly). Stop making fools of Russian peasants!
  22. Savva30
    Savva30 23 October 2013 20: 31
    -1
    Of course, I am tempted to say that I am for the free sale of weapons, as in the old days, but ... the following scares: the "vague" article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "necessary defense", it is not pulled to the proper level even by the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from September 27, 2012, since the decree is new, and the people executing it are old ..., the mess in the power structures, in society, in politics scares. In such a scenario, the sale of weapons will only lead to casualties. And most importantly, many are confident that firearms will resolve their dispute, conflict with the criminal, forgetting or ignoring the fact that they can simply handle with fear, which will lead to the seizure of the weapon by the criminal. All the heroes in front of the TV and in the kitchen after a hundred grams, in fact, few people really imagine the order of use, the consequences of using weapons ... in the times described by the author, people imagined what a weapon was, how to use it, and what are the consequences. We are not ready for this, especially young people ...
  23. Torus
    Torus 23 October 2013 20: 31
    +6
    Mao Zedong said shortly and succinctly - "The rifle gives rise to power."

    The debate about giving or not giving weapons to the population is not a debate about weapons. This is a debate about power.
    It is necessary to reckon with the armed people, it will be dangerous to disperse them by riot police like a herd of sheep. You will have to listen to what people demand and fulfill these requirements.

    but I don’t want to ....
    1. TiRex
      TiRex 10 November 2013 22: 54
      0
      only there is 4,5 million hunting for trunks (smooth and rifled) in their hands, they’ll be better than a pistol against a riot police, nobody will climb something with them on the barricades ...
  24. zub46
    zub46 23 October 2013 23: 36
    +4
    The author described the situation with the weapon well. Great work. Thank you, great article. Indeed, until 1968, hunting rifles were sold in household stores along with soap, kerosene lamps, clamps and other "edible". Anyone could buy them without any permits. I even remember the prices: a double-barreled "tulka" of 16 caliber cost 45 rubles. She is in a semi-piece performance - 63 rubles. I myself bought the first gun in the store - a single-barrel Izh-18E - in 1967, completely free, for 17 rubles. The second gun - in 1971 - already on the basis of a hunting license, where it was entered together with the first one, no permits or licenses were required for this. Gunpowder was sold completely free. You yourself know how it went further. Now completely disarmed - "sorry for the birds", probably age.
    1. Was mammoth
      Was mammoth 23 October 2013 23: 44
      0
      Quote: zub46
      Indeed, until 1968, hunting rifles were sold in household stores along with soap, kerosene lamps, clamps and other "edible".

      When my brother was working in the North, his father sent him a tulku by mail. No problem. By the way, M. Gorky shot himself. He just went and bought a revolver for it.
  25. The comment was deleted.
  26. Max_Bauder
    Max_Bauder 25 October 2013 09: 49
    0
    Quote: Torus

    Torus
    (1)

    23 October 2013 20: 31




    Mao Zedong said succinctly and succinctly - “The rifle gives rise to power.” The dispute over whether or not to give weapons to the population is not a dispute about weapons. This is a dispute about power. An armed people will have to be reckoned with, it will be dangerous to disperse riot police like a flock of sheep. You will have to listen to what people demand and fulfill these requirements, but you don't want to ...


    Absolutely said! power is to whom it is profitable.
  27. BorisBM
    BorisBM 26 October 2013 13: 55
    +2
    In the comments, many people are in favor of allowing the KRO to wear and therefore to use this KRO as a means of protection. And this is absolutely true in our dysfunctional state, especially at a time like the present, when crime, including ethnic crime, migrants, radicals Islamists do not allow our people to live peacefully. In conditions when the state, fearing for the sustainability of its own power, convinces us of incapacity and special inability to bear personal responsibility for carrying the KRO by the Russians, we can and must to organize a public organization similar to the one in the USA and to achieve a universal human right to protect our lives and the lives of loved ones from various types of criminal assaults with the help of KRO. We are not slaves and not, we are not creatures shaking .... we have the right.
  28. Jack7691
    Jack7691 3 January 2014 13: 45
    -1
    The author very tearfully tells how good it was before the revolution to have a pistol and fight off robbers and racketeers - and this shows his great mental limitations. I would like to ask - are you really sure that you can hold out with a pistol against a group of bandits with pistols too? And they know that they will attack. and you - no! But to shoot from "unhappy love" - ​​this is the main application. Or get drunk with a neighbor. In a word - p ... dobol.
  29. Prostak
    Prostak 4 January 2014 17: 00
    -1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhM72n09bqM

    Smart TV is a program with the participation of G. Uchaykin, chairman of the Ukrainian Association of Weapon Owners. Recommend.
  30. sds127
    sds127 31 October 2015 21: 04
    0
    interesting article