Military Review

Power: Mobile weapons to anything

87
However, a strong, self-governing legal society is impossible without mass civil weapons


The dispute over the legalization of civilian weapons has been going on in Russia since 1992. It was then that the first reservation appeared that our people are not yet ready for this. 20 years have passed, but from the point of view of the ruling elite, the Russians are still not ripe for such legalization. The newspaper “VPC” has already published an interview with the head of the movement “The Right to Arms”, Maria Butina. Today we decided to revisit this topic and talked with Maria about the prospects for permission to carry weapons in our country.

- Maria, what, in your opinion, is the main reason for the population’s rejection of the legalization of civilian weapons?

- In ignorance and lack of weapons culture. In the same United States, politicians may even want to ban everything, but the weapons culture of American society is so high that making such insane demands like a ban on civilian weapons for the ruling stratum in the US is political suicide.

In Russia, the situation is opposite. The majority of our elite understand that civilian weapons are not a problem, but the main argument against the legalization of pistols is against the people. By the way, even in the modern Baltic republics, where 20 has been allowed by civilians for years to own pistols, up to 80 percent of the population, not knowing this, strongly opposes the possibility of legalization.

If a solid and efficient organization of owners of civilian weapons, uniting at least one hundred thousand real people, appeared in Russia, politicians would have to listen to the opinion of such a force.

- And our government itself is the carrier of such weapons culture?

- The authorities love to shoot. Many members of the elite have premium weapons. Unfortunately, we have not completely outlived the vestiges of the feudal society with its system of class privileges. Many gun owners sincerely believe that the mob does not need this privilege. Therefore, the majority of major opponents of civilian weapons are security forces, people directly connected with weapons.

- Opponents are stubbornly trying to stick the right to arms to the label of the paid agents of the bloody arms lobby, but you don’t make much money in manufacturing and trading military civilian weapons. It turns out that the idea itself is important to you? No business?

Power: Mobile weapons to anything- For most successful businessmen, the idea comes first. Money can not be eaten, it is just a resource for the realization of certain ideals and aspirations. We are enthusiasts and believe in what we do, we consider it necessary. Hopefully, over time, we will grow from a regular community of enthusiasts into a real lobbying mechanism to protect the rights and interests of the owners of weapons and the arms industry.

There is nothing reprehensible in defending the interests of these taxpayers, forcing legislators and perpetrators to reckon with them, as there is nothing wrong with the work of a builder, lawyer, hunter or security guard. In this regard, the term “bloody weapon lobbyists” is not a charge for me, but a compliment.

The blood of the enemies of society, lawbreakers, rapists, murderers and robbers should be poured if we do not want the blood of law-abiding citizens, your wives, children and old people to flow. With the same success, surgery can be called a bloody industry, in which, by the way, errors and failures occur much more often than among weapon owners.

- So, the state does not trust its citizens in Russia, believing that they should not be given real weapons for self-defense. Why doesn’t everyone hurt such distrust?

- Hurt dignity can only be if it is. We, the owners of legal weapons, self-confident, taking responsibility, it hurts. There are no people who are ready to leave their family unprotected and completely shift the responsibility onto the shoulders of the police, who will almost certainly not be able to arrive on time.

People simply do not understand the essence and meaning of civilian weapons and live in their parallel dimension, where "a woman who was raped and killed is morally superior to an aunt with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet." Try adding your loved ones, young children or elderly parents to this equation ... Those who believe that non-violence in such cases is morally above the necessary defense are insane.

- Opponents of the movement say that it is only possible to resolve and disarm people will not succeed. It's true?

- We don't know well history. We forgot that before 1918, military pistols were sold to citizens in Russia with the right to wear; we forgot that before 70s of the last century there were no licenses for hunting weapons. Under the conditions of this historical vacuum of knowledge, ideas arise that disarm the legally armed population will not succeed. Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot quite successfully did it. With known consequences.

- Some hotheads offer to seek an All-Russian referendum on the right to arms. Do I need it? Is it possible to?

- The referendum is relevant primarily to overcome the argument of some politicians that the people are against. Appealing to the will of the people? Well, let's hold a referendum or do not use this excuse for the urgent reform.

The referendum will only benefit the arms community. It will be an event unprecedented for modern Russia that will put the issue of civilian weapons in the spotlight. In the process of preparing for the referendum, approximately 10 – 20 percent of Russians will move to the position of supporters of legalizing pistols only against the background of the multitude of facts and opinions that will come to the surface during the discussion of this topic.

- What are the remaining 80 percent of convinced opponents?

- You know, there are virtually no conscious opponents of the rights of citizens to weapons. There are several unscrupulous apparatchiks interested in the shadow market. There are really crazy, sick people who demand total disarmament and believe in pacifism. And there is a scared, crippled, misinformed majority. Not these amorphous, intimidated opponents of civilian weapons will come to the referendum, but an active minority of supporters. So we have every chance to win on a similar referendum. That is why the administration is easier and more convenient to implement our requirements without any referendum, because then it can limit itself to half measures and delay reforms.

- How long does it take to say that our people are ready for the legalization of civilian weapons? Who and according to what plan should do this training?

- “The people are not ready” - these are excuses. Politicians understand that supporters of the return of full rights to weapons are becoming more serious force and can no longer just send us to all four sides. The fact that this excuse is absolutely untenable is also understandable. In this respect, I like most of all the analogy with a child wrapped in diapers. Instead of teaching the infant to walk, the distraught parent keeps him wrapped, claiming that before he learns to walk in some mysterious way, he is not wrapped up. The reasoning that our society cannot receive these or other rights and freedoms, since it is not ready for this, is from the same opera. This is blatant abuse of common sense and logic.

Almost all the post-socialist countries of Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Warsaw block went to the legalization of pistols. It was thanks to this that they immediately had a decent, correct and limited power without execution tanks opposition, as well as low crime and acceptable levels of corruption. In Russia, due to the defenselessness of the population, there was a rampant crime of the 90s. And then the people demanded a strong hand. If pistols for civilian possession had been allowed in Russia since 1992, there would have been no such lawlessness of crime, reforms would have been consistent and integral, and we would now be a prosperous, dynamically developing country, and not a society lost in time and space, still undecided what it is building, which way it goes, whether it is on the way to Europe. A strong, self-governing legal society is impossible without massive civilian weapons.

- In 1969, an army officer, dressed in a police uniform, fired his squad pistol into a government motorcade. After that, army and police officers were forbidden to keep service guns constantly with them. Our system has changed, a whole chain of leaders has gone into oblivion, and this prohibition is alive and well. At the same time, the generals of the Ministry of Internal Affairs constantly insist that only specialized and trained people should have a weapon. Where is the logic here?

- We should not look for logic where there is only cowardice and corruption interest. The highest hierarchs of the security forces are guarded round the clock by the armed FSO and do not deprive themselves of premium weapons. The problems of their grassroots composition are of little concern. They fear that an armed policeman might do something wrong and they will lose their posts for it. Therefore, this vicious logic continues to dominate.

Strictly speaking, even large police commanders do not say that they are completely against it. They confess in personal conversations: it doesn’t matter to them, but since their names are on television as opponents, they oppose it. There are literally a few paranoids who believe that civilian weapons pose some kind of revolutionary threat, and despite the insanity of this idea, it is sufficiently entrenched at the top of departments simply because they are organically interested in pulling all power and resources towards themselves.

Therefore, it is logical that the law enforcement agencies are officially in their old position - to regulate everything as much as possible and not to allow anyone to do anything, even if it hurts them, and gangsters kill policemen more often than police gangsters.

- Shooting clubs are widely represented in the movement. In other countries in such clubs you can shoot from whatever brands you want and small arms systems. And what kind of weapons in our clubs?

- The most unique and representative shooting complex in Russia allows you to shoot only from the 21 position. If in Moscow shooting galleries there is still a relatively small, but still significant arsenal of weapons available for shooting, then in the provinces the situation, frankly, is critical. There types of weapons available in shooting ranges are sometimes limited to a few sporty "little balls" and air pistols. This is also a significant aspect of the imperfection of the existing legal regime of weapons. And if the limitations of its range are still half the problem, then a far more glaring problem is the overestimated cost of rifle practices in Russia in the context of our closed and insufficiently competitive market of rifle industry, directly determined by the limited nature of civilian weapons in the country, with an overestimated cost of ammunition. This is not just a problem of the leisure of those who like to shoot, it is a direct blow to the national weapon culture, which affects our shooting sport, our weapon industry, and ultimately even our defense capability is undermined. After all, a system of voluntary and accessible galleries could significantly increase the number of highly skilled respectable shooters, who are not only the personnel base of power structures, but also the basis of the military reserve, our mobilization potential, which is undermined by existing flaws in the legal regime of weapons in the country.

- Still, opponents of the movement say that if you allow the shortbag, people will go to jail en masse for exceeding the limits of self-defense. This is true?

- It is important not to exaggerate. The cases of Ivannikova, Tarasov, Kudryavtseva and Gegham Sargsyan showed that by killing a criminal in self-defense, a person does not necessarily become a criminal himself. There are many cases of the legal use of civilian weapons, when no repressive consequences have followed. Just these things do not get wide public resonance. For example, according to the regional police department, only in 2008, with the help of traumatic weapons, were 30 cases of necessary defense fixed, each of which was recognized as legal. Here, as in the case of civilian self-defense weapons in general, the most flagrant are the flagrant cases of law enforcement errors, and not their adequate responses. Therefore, the very thesis that the use of self-defense weapons in self-defense in Russia will necessarily lead to criminal prosecution is incorrect.

However, there is certainly a problem, and the very fact that the defended party has to prove its integrity and will certainly initiate a criminal case against it, even if it is then closed, is unacceptable and does not contribute to the growth of civil liability. With the latest ruling of the Supreme Court, which significantly details and expands the concept of “necessary self-defense”, the situation has improved, but this success should certainly be further developed.

It is important to understand that it is better to be in prison than to lie in a grave. 80 percent of cases of successful self-defense, according to world experience, falls on battle pistols. Despite the fact that their number in the hands of the population is approximately identical to the number of long-barreled weapons. Therefore, the priority is still to provide citizens with effective means of self-defense, even if this is not accompanied by the liberalization of the legal regime of self-defense. It will save thousands of innocent lives every year and minimize violent crime.

- In countries where the right of citizens to weapons operates in its entirety, the military industry and the economy as a whole have certain advantages. What can you say about this?

- The idea that big people decide the fate of the country, and the population somewhere on the sidelines should stand up - this is our main problem, due to the historical upheavals of the national state inertia. Gradually, this problem is being overcome, an awareness of the importance of a private-state partnership comes, but this awareness has not yet fully reached the fundamental issues of security and weapons. This is the reason for such an abnormally high level of violent crime in Russia, which is several times higher than the level of criminal violence in neighboring countries. For the same reason, there are systemic problems in our military-industrial complex, which is experiencing aging personnel and a shortage of funds. Hence the problem of the shortage of draftees in the Armed Forces, while in some countries volunteers themselves form the backbone of the national armed reserve.

- That is, the situation directly threatens our national security?

- Yes. After all, if, for example, to compare the scale of ammunition and weapons production in Russia and the United States, the lack of balance of forces will be evident. Every second American family is already armed today, in their country about 300 of millions of small arms are only in the use of citizens. There are even more than a thousand combat-ready privately owned tanks (for comparison: all the armed forces of Ukraine have 700 tanks, Mexico have 45), every year in the United States more than 12 billions of all kinds of cartridges are produced. There is not enough local production capacity, so this year private arms companies from the United States signed contracts for the supply of a billion rounds of ammunition for the needs of the civilian market only from Russia. The paradox of the situation is that today, to a large extent, it is the American citizens who allow our arms enterprises to stay afloat (up to 40 percent of Izhmash’s civilian products are exported to the US), especially if you deduct state orders from calculations - an unstable phenomenon that our MIC to the strongest blow in 90-s.

- And yet, can we say that the market for civilian weapons is not very profitable?

- I would not take it to say. Up to 70 percent of the global array of small arms, which has almost a billion units, is accounted for by individuals. This array over the past five years has grown by 35 percent, demonstrating its growth even in times of crisis and failure in other segments of the economy. Thus, in 2007 – 2011, real sales of civilian weapons in Russia grew by 47,6 percent. Today, for example, from 53 to 70, the percentage of weapons production in Izhmash falls on the civilian market and this share increases every year, which is a general pattern in this area.

Meanwhile, in Russia, all stocks of small arms are limited to several tens of millions of units. The number of owners of civilian weapons in our country is five million, the weapons in the hands of the population are ten times less than in the United States, while the crime murder rate is three times higher. Our mobilization potentials are simply not comparable.

- Indeed ... Before the military mobilization, the absolute majority of the best Soviet snipers during the Great Patriotic War were either hunters, or sports shooters, or participants in the OSOAVIAHIM system.

- Yes! What is happening now? In modern Estonia, by the way, not only imported weapons are two to three times cheaper than in Russia, but even domestic products, such as our Barnaul Cartridge Plant, are several times cheaper. People who are seriously involved in shooting sports are forced to do this in other countries or at least buy products abroad; shooting practice in Russia is a very expensive pleasure. And now, at times, the fines for shooting in the wrong places have been tightened, while the infrastructure of shooting ranges and shooting galleries in the country is in its infancy, the opening of a new rifle facility requires overcoming huge administrative and bureaucratic barriers. What development of weapons culture, mobilization potential and support of the military industrial complex can be discussed today?

It is important to understand that by investing even trillions of state rubles in this area without attracting private investment and initiative, we will not be able to get high efficiency, but rather we will get new Mistral purchases and corruption scandals in the Ministry of Defense.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
87 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Valery Neonov
    Valery Neonov 31 October 2013 07: 57
    10
    Our Russian "elites" (including deputies) live too far from the people (the mob). The people do not care about their ("elite") opinions and permissions. hi
    1. mirag2
      mirag2 31 October 2013 08: 21
      -9
      The Russian elites live, VERY far from the people ... Perhaps, of course, they are afraid to entrust the people with weapons,
      And although I love and respect weapons, I am still against them in our society today.
      What if some scumbags like "Pussy Wright", or some fans of Navalny organize a radical militant cell, are outraged by our power, and all democratizers say:
      - "You shot them (and you have to shoot), and this is the best part of your society, and here are the sanctions for you ... Here."
      Well, or something like that, and we have a lot of crime. Not a lot compared to the 90s (we had 2 trunks), and a lot compared to a healthy society.
      And all sorts of headless bunkers?
      And conflicts on national soil?
      No, obviously this is not the time to sell weapons now.
      And injuries should soon be banned. It will be calmer.
      I think so.
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 31 October 2013 08: 44
        +6
        Quote: mirag2
        and all democratizers will say:
        - "You shot them (and you have to shoot), and this is the best part of your society, and here are the sanctions for you ... Here."

        And what, a sovereign country is obliged to look into the mouth of "all democratizers"? The retaliatory sanctions are not for .. but?
      2. Normal
        Normal 31 October 2013 10: 04
        13
        Quote: mirag2
        No, obviously this is not the time to sell weapons now.
        And injuries should soon be banned. It will be calmer.
        I think so.

        Yes! And prohibit kitchen knives and hammers, since it is with these "weapons" that most murders are committed.
        1. varov14
          varov14 31 October 2013 13: 03
          +2
          Gentlemen, how is it? "We, the owners of legal weapons, confident, taking responsibility, are offended. There are no people who are ready to leave their family unprotected and completely shift the responsibility onto the shoulders of the police, who will almost certainly not be able to arrive on time." What are we building, what kind of society is man to man a wolf? Those. Should I be wary of my neighbor, a fellow citizen, sleep with a gun under the bed? The Americans are not an example for me in this regard, why I need such a society. In this regard, it is better to pay attention to the younger generation. The next thing is to intimidate the authorities. Well, 100 thousand came out into the square, naturally with weapons. Further, several provocateurs from the authorities or opponents fired into the crowd, moreover from hiding, and a civil war began. So it's cheaper to turn on your head when you go to the polls. And the last thing. This is an obvious omission of the state, in order to increase the country's defense capability, it really is necessary to build shooting ranges where anyone could shoot from the heart, suddenly it will come in handy. Personally, I wanted to buy a stun gun myself and felt ashamed in front of myself. I am not a pacifist, on occasion I will take up a weapon, Well, if someone does not like a specific "deputy", then run over him with a car, why a gun - it's a shame, that's it. I am not against personal weapons, I am against the imposition of this idea. To the wrong steppe.
          1. Rakti-kali
            Rakti-kali 31 October 2013 16: 00
            +3
            Quote: varov14
            I am not against personal weapons, I am against the imposition of this idea.

            So let them give the right to purchase, store and carry the COP. You see "right". Do not want to have a COP - no need, no one will impose it on you.
        2. Simon
          Simon 31 October 2013 13: 24
          +3
          Of course, there are a bunch of ways to kill a person, you can even kill with a word, but for some reason they only clung to firearms. A normal person will never grab a weapon immediately and use it only in exceptional cases when there is a threat of death to him and his relatives.
      3. George
        George 31 October 2013 10: 20
        +2
        Quote: mirag2
        And conflicts on national soil?

        Quote: mirag2
        - "You shot them (and you have to shoot), and this is the best part of your society, and here are the sanctions for you ... Nate." Well, or something like that, and we have a lot of crime. Not much compared to the 90s ( I myself had 2 trunks), and compared to a healthy society, a lot.

        Given the fact that the bandits are already armed, do not you think that it is time to give the opportunity to defend law-abiding citizens?
        Quote: mirag2
        What if some scumbags like "Pussy Wright", or some fans of Navalny organize a radical militant cell, are outraged by our power, and all democratizers say: - "You shot them (and you have to shoot), and this is the best part of your society, and here are the sanctions ... Here. "

        We'll have to start shooting democratizers who consider moral monsters the best part of society.
        Quote: mirag2
        And injuries should soon be banned. It will be calmer.

        Gangbangs for sure.
      4. Nogicune
        Nogicune 31 October 2013 10: 34
        +4
        hi If some scumbags want to organize a radical fighting cell, they will organize it without any legalization
      5. Aliv
        Aliv 31 October 2013 15: 23
        +4
        It will not reach anyone that there is no problem for a person going against the law to acquire weapons. We have one of the largest markets for illegal weapons. We are talking about law-abiding citizens. Which, by virtue of their responsibility, and want to do everything according to the law. So criminals drive with machines in cars, including in Moscow. Ask yourself a question. Where do they get them. Stupidly bought. Because for them this is not a PROBLEM!
      6. Aliv
        Aliv 31 October 2013 15: 23
        +2
        It will not reach anyone that there is no problem for a person going against the law to acquire weapons. We have one of the largest markets for illegal weapons. We are talking about law-abiding citizens. Which, by virtue of their responsibility, and want to do everything according to the law. So criminals drive with machines in cars, including in Moscow. Ask yourself a question. Where do they get them. Stupidly bought. Because for them this is not a PROBLEM!
      7. Rakti-kali
        Rakti-kali 31 October 2013 15: 56
        +1
        Quote: mirag2
        What if some scumbags like "Pussy Wright", or some fans of Navalny organize a radical militant cell, are outraged by our power, and all democratizers say: - "You shot them (and you have to shoot), and this is the best part of your society, and here are the sanctions ... Here. "

        RAVE.
        Quote: mirag2
        And all sorts of headless bunkers?

        A licensing system for what?
        Quote: mirag2
        And conflicts on national soil?

        Sharply come to naught.
        Quote: mirag2
        And injuries should soon be banned.

        The only clever thought. I agree with you on this.
    2. Per se.
      Per se. 31 October 2013 09: 24
      +2
      Quote: Valery Neonov
      Our Russian "elites" (including deputies) live too far from the people (the mob).
      And thank God that they are far away, they have not ruined everything yet, they have not altered everything for themselves in the laws. Not the "rabble" people, the rabble in the minds and hearts of the builders of the new society of merchants and egoists.
      1. Orel
        Orel 31 October 2013 09: 39
        0
        You can hurt dignity only if it is. We, the owners of legal weapons, self-confident, taking responsibility, it hurts. There are no people who are ready to leave their family unprotected and completely shift the responsibility onto the shoulders of the police, which will almost certainly not be able to arrive on time.


        Complete nonsense!!! Big words only, but in fact what? None of them can guarantee that after that someone on the street will not shoot you or rob you at gunpoint. Whoever said that, but on our streets is much safer than in the same USA, where many have weapons ...
        1. Normal
          Normal 31 October 2013 10: 08
          +5
          Quote: Orel
          None of them can guarantee that after that someone on the street will not shoot you or rob you at gunpoint.

          I understand that now you have such guarantees?
          Quote: Orel
          Whoever said that, but on our streets is much safer than in the same USA, where many have weapons ...

          Serious crime statistics per capita in the US and Russia, please. As well as statistics on the number of police per capita
          1. lelikas
            lelikas 31 October 2013 14: 07
            0
            Quote: Normal
            As well as statistics on the number of police per capita

            In the last sweet little fellow on this subject, I already wrote that for ten years I have not seen a single patrolman or a PMG car in my yard, but I saw a miracle, but only because they went around the traffic jam.
        2. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 31 October 2013 16: 02
          0
          Quote: Orel
          None of them can guarantee that after that someone on the street will not shoot you or rob you at gunpoint.

          Well so and now even more so no one can guarantee this.
          1. Orel
            Orel 31 October 2013 17: 45
            -1
            Well so and now even more so no one can guarantee this.


            What do you traumatic lack? Why do you need military weapons? To protect, injury is enough. Go buy, please. They haven’t fought yet ... They shoot a little from the windows of expensive cars, is it better to scorch them from military ones?
            1. Rakti-kali
              Rakti-kali 31 October 2013 18: 45
              +1
              Quote: Orel
              What do you traumatic lack?

              Because "traumatic" is perceived by most of its owners as an extension cord hu.ya ... uh-uh-uh ... sorry, hands. And the attitude to its use is appropriate - complete irresponsibility.
              Quote: Orel
              For protection, injuries are enough

              Not always. And the attackers are often not afraid of her, knowing that the striking ability of the handgun is often insufficient when shooting at the body, and to shoot in the head is low-handed.

              Quote: Orel
              Not warred yet ...

              Kindergarten ... by level of argumentation.
              Quote: Orel
              Few of the windows of expensive cars shoot

              See above - "Because" traumatic "is perceived ..."
    3. kris
      kris 31 October 2013 11: 05
      +3
      in the 2009 year in Russia 15 954 people were killed, or 11,2 per 100 thousand people. In terms of the absolute number of such crimes, Russia even surpassed the United States, despite the fact that it is twice as inferior to the United States in terms of population. In the USA, over the same period, 15 241 people were killed (or 5 by 100 thousand). The statistics of the Ministry of Internal Affairs are even sadder: according to the ministry, in 2009, more than 17 thousand people were killed.
      1. Fin
        Fin 31 October 2013 12: 19
        0
        In the USA in 2011, 100 murders were recorded per 4,8 thousand people, and in Russia in 2010 (the last for which data are available) - 10,2 murders. But the proportion of firearms in the killings in our country is still much less. In 2001, the last one for which there is data, for the 100 thousand inhabitants of Russia, only 1,4 were killed using firearms. It is unlikely that over the past decade this figure has increased noticeably. But everything can change if they legalize at least short-barreled weapons. And this, by the way, is not only pistols, but also submachine guns. If we began to commit, as in America, two-thirds of killings with the use of firearms, and killings without its use would remain at the same level, then the total number of killings per 100 thousand inhabitants would reach 26,4, that is, would increase 2,6 times. Well, such a big growth probably would not have happened, since some of the less skilled killers would prefer to change the kitchen knife to a revolver. But an increase in the total number of murders in Russia in the case of the legalization of firearms by 1,5-2 times seems to me quite real. It’s enough to recall how often we use traumatic weapons during banal accidents and domestic quarrels in restaurants and nightclubs. So far, according to official figures, over eight years, 100 people have died from the use of traumatic weapons in Russia, and another 500 people have been injured. Now imagine that in the hands of heated drivers or visitors to the bar will be not traumatic, but combat pistols. The number of victims may increase tenfold.

        In America, a certain culture of handling weapons has developed. Most Americans will not recklessly wave a gun and use it for any reason, as we see in cowboy westerns. Our population does not have such a culture. Therefore, very many, in the case of even a minor quarrel, are ready to immediately clutch at weapons. And the thesis that combat pistols will greatly help respectable citizens in defense against criminals also looks like cunning. The offender initially has a number of advantages over his victim. As a rule, he attacks suddenly and uses the weapon first. Therefore, the gun is more necessary for him than the victim, who most often simply does not have time to use it. But more importantly, if a person does not have combat experience, or at least the experience of serving in the army or the police, it will be psychologically very difficult for him to shoot another person, even if he is a criminal. And the criminals take advantage of this. It is naive to think that the legalization of firearms will make our lives safer. On the contrary, it will inevitably lead to an increase in crimes related to the use of violence, including murder.

        JEWISH WORD, No. 43 (603), 2012

        http://www.e-slovo.ru
      2. kartalovkolya
        kartalovkolya 1 November 2013 14: 05
        0
        Well, how long can you jump on the same rake: let me remind you especially "hard", there is a lie, there is a monstrous lie and there is STATISTICS !!! Well, really there are still people who believe statistics, lie is one lie, scum, and how much did you get paid for it?
    4. lelikas
      lelikas 31 October 2013 14: 01
      +8
      Instead of a thousand words .
      1. Orel
        Orel 31 October 2013 14: 58
        0
        JEWISH WORD, No. 43 (603), 2012


        That says it all...
        1. Fin
          Fin 31 October 2013 17: 17
          0
          Quote: Orel
          That says it all...

          More specifically, what is not written? Real, sober reasoning.
  2. Same lech
    Same lech 31 October 2013 08: 03
    11
    The question has long been beaten up many times - our citizen does not have the right to defend himself by injuring the attacker (this is considered an excess of self-defense), therefore the presence of weapons gives little in the legal sense.
    Having received a bullet in the neck of an eye or in an egg, the offender automatically becomes a victim and the victim changes places with the attacker (such is la la vie).
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 31 October 2013 09: 38
      +1
      Maria Valerievna Butina was born on November 10, 1988 in Barnaul. Member of the international shooting federations IPSC and IDPA, judge of the Russian Association of Practical Shooting Judges, honorary member of the Association of Arms Owners of Ukraine, founder and chairman of the board of the Right to Arms movement. As a result of her activities within the Right to Arms movement, she was accused of lobbying for the commercial interests of specialized structures of the military-industrial complex and gunsmiths, as well as foreigners.
      Believe that the interests of the people are close to her?
      1. Normal
        Normal 31 October 2013 10: 12
        12
        Quote: Per se.
        Believe that the interests of the people are close to her?

        Do you believe that the interests of the people are close to the police generals and the Russian pseudo-elite?
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 31 October 2013 11: 04
          +3
          Quote: Normal
          Do you believe that the interests of the people are close to the police generals and the Russian pseudo-elite?
          Our pseudo-elite only cares about profit and taking care of your ego. For them, the law reads differently, all the more, if there is a right to a combat shot, any of their firing can become "self-defense", with a bunch of lawyers and "witnesses." Even all this show business that drunk Vitas got away with, an ordinary person would be jailed for this. Speaking directly about police generals, they are obliged to work out their salaries to ensure law and order, to create a peaceful, calm life, and not to shift these problems onto the people.
          1. Rakti-kali
            Rakti-kali 31 October 2013 16: 11
            +1
            Quote: Per se.
            Our pseudo-elite only cares about profit and taking care of your ego. For them, the law reads differently, all the more so if there is a right to a combat shot, any of their firing can become "self-defense", with a bunch of lawyers and "witnesses".

            That's just the probability of getting a plumbum tablette percranially for them, too, will increase by orders of magnitude, which, essno, will entail a significant decrease in the desire to show off with weapons.
      2. Fin
        Fin 31 October 2013 10: 47
        0
        Quote: Per se.
        Believe that the interests of the people are close to her?

        I agree. Lobbying the interests of manufacturers. The article is continuous discussion, there are no statistics on the use, apparently not in their favor. Yesterday I watched a video of a showdown in Dagestan on a stolen bride - trunks from almost all participants. In the center of the city, a shootout is normal? Allowing the disassembling weapons will be legal, and the police will sort out who has self-defense.
        And how many boobies don't know what to do? Give me a weapon and immediately check in. No, I am against who needs those who have legal.
        1. pv1005
          pv1005 31 October 2013 12: 04
          +3
          And how many dumbass cars play roulette with other people's lives? So now ban cars?
          1. rereture
            rereture 31 October 2013 12: 30
            -2
            You can see how the car is moving, determine the degree of adequacy of the person and the danger emanating from him, and if necessary, save yourself (jump, run away, dodge, take the vehicle to the side), or minimize damage.

            Most often, accidents occur due to drunk driving, weather conditions, reckless, quality of roads.
        2. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 31 October 2013 16: 15
          +2
          Quote: Fin
          And how many boobies don't know what to do? Give me a weapon and immediately check in.

          If a person is not engaged in anything, he most likely will not have the funds to purchase a COP. Well, the high probability of getting a real bullet when trying to "check in business" from a bystander also does not contribute to the desire to get the barrel just for fun.
          1. Fin
            Fin 31 October 2013 17: 06
            -1
            Quote: Rakti-Kali
            If a person does not do anything, he most likely will not have the funds to purchase a COP.

            I'm talking about those boobies who have everything, the trunk is just not enough.
            1. Rakti-kali
              Rakti-kali 31 October 2013 18: 48
              +3
              Quote: Fin
              I'm talking about those boobies who have everything, the trunk is just not enough.

              I foresaw this, you just probably did not notice. Okay, I repeat - Well, the high probability of getting a real bullet when trying to "check in" from a bystander also does not contribute to the desire to get the barrel just for fun.
        3. Normal
          Normal 31 October 2013 17: 57
          +3
          Quote: Fin
          Article - continuous reasoning,

          The article is solid arguments against the ban on the short-barrel, which were not refuted at the discussion.
          Quote: Fin
          statistics on the use of no, apparently not in their favor.

          The article on this topic is far from the first, and there were plenty of statistics both for and against. By the way, in my opinion, the statistics are rather “for” than “against” short-barreled. For example, this information:

          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.
    2. Valery Neonov
      Valery Neonov 31 October 2013 09: 49
      +3
      Although there is such a doc nt as the Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation"On the application by the courts of legislation on the necessary defense and causing harm during the arrest of a person who has committed a crime"- the most curious document ... But our "humane" courts for some reason do not apply it in practice, limiting themselves only to Article 37 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation ... request
      1. Yarosvet
        Yarosvet 31 October 2013 19: 41
        +1
        Quote: Valery Neon
        .That's just our "humane" courts for some reason do not apply it in practice
    3. APES
      APES 31 October 2013 11: 15
      +2
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      which gives in a legal sense

      I agree, the law on self-defense should be revised

      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      the presence of weapons gives little

      this is not enough - availability - you need to know how to be READY to apply it

      I would give the right to carry and use, if necessary, service weapons to the personnel officers of the Armed Forces - they know, they can and can, plus they have some kind of moral imperative - it would have become calmer on the streets.

      regarding the weapon itself, the knife is much worse and more dangerous than a pistol in skilled hands

      regarding a criminal and an honest citizen, even if they have both weapons, they still will not be on an equal footing - the reason is that if the criminal decided to act, he will act to the end and most importantly, he will not put his honest citizen in his intentions fame (there may be no time to get your faithful colt from the portfolio).

      regarding any extreme situations - the best solution is not to get into them, how to achieve this - for a start, just go to self-defense courses (hand-to-hand combat is the army option) - there will be an understanding - how fragile the human body is, the second is psychological preparation - who is interested in reading "combat machine "Taras (a book about the training of special forces in which there is not a single picture and not a single description of how to beat correctly) - the epigraph to the book -" the most terrible animal on the planet is a cornered rat "- who wants to make sure - go down to the basement , find and try.

      PS
      "everyone who takes the sword, by the sword will also perish"
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 31 October 2013 11: 26
        -1
        You see, I wanted to say that the use of weapons in a quick battle by an ordinary person is not a super duper officer, but by an average average person, this is a completely different level.
        It is possible that a man only has time to grab a weapon and remove it from the fuse and shoot it, he will already shake his hands without aiming it will inevitably lead to an empty shot in the air and both the criminal and the victim of the attack itself or an accidental passerby will suffice here.
        The law imposes responsibility on the one who used the weapon, this is the Alchilles heel of the owner of the weapon.
        Shot by the owner of the weapon-be ready for a prison term.
        1. APES
          APES 31 October 2013 11: 50
          0
          Quote: The same LYOKHA
          the use of weapons in a short-lived battle by an ordinary person is not a super duper officer but an ordinary average person, this is a completely different level.

          in this case, an ordinary person, even TRAINED, is better to fulfill all the requirements of the criminal - here one task (the most important) is to survive! there is a golden rule - I’m not sure - don’t hit or there should be only one blow in a fight - there may not be a second one.
          Quote: The same LYOKHA
          The law imposes liability on the one who used the weapon

          there is another law, and my opinion is better to follow it
          1. Same lech
            Same lech 31 October 2013 12: 04
            +1
            The criminal may not have any requirements; he may be drunk in the middle of drugs or just crazy and wants to just kill you stupidly by banging on the head with a brick (I have a video on this subject that is fatal).
            Further, there may be a situation when you have to protect the life of your child, wife or parents from a psychopath, then you will not get away with flight or exhortations.
            In any case, you will have to apply what is at hand.
            1. APES
              APES 31 October 2013 12: 19
              0
              Quote: The same LYOKHA
              In any case, you will have to apply what is at hand

              I saw one intellectual (170 growth, wearing glasses when the wind blows) - for a long time I tried to explain how he broke a branch from a tree, with which 3 = x gopniks were sent to the hospital. laughing
              Quote: The same LYOKHA
              let's say hit a brick on the head

              brick can fly from the roof

              my opinion: weapons to a simple, peaceful person - his presence - will not bring peace and tranquility to his life
              1. Same lech
                Same lech 31 October 2013 12: 29
                +3
                The absence of weapons will also not make you protected from the vicissitudes of fate, so we go into the philosophical field of reasoning.
                Let's go back to the sinful land, you see, in our society it so happened that weapons can have a privileged class of people, a caste as you want.
                I consider it unfair why one person (under equal conditions) has the right to arms and the other does not.
                Indeed, according to the main law of the country (CONSTITUTION), we are all equal and everyone has the right to life and its protection by all legal methods.
                Then it turns out that some group of people has more rights than everyone else, this is wrong.
                There is no trust in law enforcement bodies in RUSSIA (count towards the state) and this is the main reason for all these battles about weapons.
                1. APES
                  APES 31 October 2013 12: 49
                  0
                  Quote: The same LYOKHA
                  into the philosophical field of reasoning.

                  agree

                  But I will continue - this world, by definition, is unfair and fair will never be

                  Quote: The same LYOKHA
                  has more rights than everyone else is wrong

                  again, I agree
                  Quote: The same LYOKHA
                  There is no trust in law enforcement bodies in RUSSIA (count towards the state)

                  "judge them by their works"

                  But - the presence of weapons in an ordinary peaceful person - will not solve all these problems, but on the contrary will give rise to new ones, including that of a simple person (this is my opinion - sorry, I’m not convincing you)
                  1. Same lech
                    Same lech 31 October 2013 12: 53
                    0
                    It's nice to talk with a smart and confident person hi
                2. Aliv
                  Aliv 31 October 2013 15: 50
                  0
                  But what about the diplomatic immunity? Maybe cancel it? If one bends before the people, then the people can become impudent, and demand equality in other areas. Do you think the bureaucrats will go for it?
          2. Rakti-kali
            Rakti-kali 31 October 2013 16: 34
            +1
            Quote: APES
            in this case, an ordinary person, even TRAINED, is better to fulfill all the requirements of the criminal

            What a fright !? If there is an opportunity to defend and prevent the commission of illegal actions - why become like a sheep?
        2. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 31 October 2013 16: 32
          +1
          Quote: The same LYOKHA
          It is possible that a man only has time to grab a weapon and remove it from the fuse and shoot it, he will already shake his hands without aiming it will inevitably lead to an empty shot in the air and both the criminal and the victim of the attack itself or an accidental passerby will suffice here.

          Yah??? And where can we get examples from? Where do statistics come from?
          Reaching the barrel is not a Tunisian wedding, not even the most trained person can get and make a gun for shooting in 3-4 seconds (and this is from under warm outerwear), and if you practice a little and use a modern holster or bag with a compartment for a pistol, it is quite possible, as practice shows, to be made ready for shooting in 1-2 seconds.
          Aiming skills are also not "high magic" - they are acquired rather quickly.
    4. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 31 October 2013 16: 07
      0
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      The question has long been beaten many times - our citizen does not have the right to defend himself by injuring the attacker (this is considered an excess of self-defense), therefore, having a weapon does little in the legitimate sense. Having received a bullet in the neck of an eye or in an egg, a criminal automatically becomes a victim and the victim changes places with the attacker (such is se la vi).

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

      Another important point: a person has the right to protect not only himself, but others as well. Do you see someone being beaten? Don't pass by. The ruling, published today, "On the Application of Legislation on Necessary Defense and Causing Harm by the Courts in the Detention of a Person Who Has Committed a Crime" puts the life of an honest person under special protection.
      http://www.rg.ru/2012/10/03/plenum-dok.html
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 1 November 2013 05: 43
        0
        You know this is all beautifully said, but practice shows the exact opposite — remember last year’s story with the farmer — protecting his family, he killed two or three bandits, and so the criminal case was brought against him and not against the bandits, and only the intervention of the people saved him from prison.
        Tell me - how can I trust the law enforcement agencies after that if I know what kind of self-defense I will be sent to prison.
  3. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 31 October 2013 08: 04
    10
    the authorities are simply very afraid of an armed citizen, because if there is a situation when a citizen has to choose his life, the life of his children or, for example, the life of a presumptuous guardian, an official, it is not difficult to guess what he will choose.
    1. Starfish
      Starfish 31 October 2013 10: 51
      +1
      "the authorities are simply very afraid of an armed citizen"

      I agree. our power is cowardly. and she fears, first of all, the people. because "the cat knows whose sour cream has eaten"
  4. Avenger711
    Avenger711 31 October 2013 08: 06
    -7
    Again, losers are reflecting due to the lack of Kalash at home. Minus without even reading too much. The time of the need for mass arming of the population has passed long ago.
    1. PPL
      PPL 31 October 2013 08: 30
      -1
      I read the article, I did not hear anything new from Butina (and it would be strange to hear).
      "The opponents of weapons are either criminals or their accomplices." - this is its main slogan.
      So, without trial, you become a criminal? Judge in this case, who? Just do not about Colt, who made everyone equal.
    2. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 31 October 2013 16: 36
      0
      Quote: Avenger711
      Again, losers are reflecting due to the lack of Kalash at home.

      Oh, again the loser for non-resistance to evil by violence and world peace brought the barrel organ ...
  5. Canep
    Canep 31 October 2013 08: 07
    -6
    If a person has been trained, has no problems with the police and the psyche, and is ready to pay a serious amount for a license, I think at least 500 bucks a year, then I think you can allow this person to use weapons.
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 31 October 2013 08: 46
      13
      Quote: Canep
      and I’m ready to pay a serious amount for the license, I think at least 500 bucks a year,

      Again, a cutoff on material wealth, the poor do not need protection, let them die.
      1. Canep
        Canep 31 October 2013 09: 08
        +1
        Mandatory cut-off, so that the grandmother would not start earning money, for those who do not want to pay there is a hunting weapon. It’s true that you don’t look like a shotgun along the street, but it’s good for protecting the house.
      2. tan0472
        tan0472 31 October 2013 09: 10
        -4
        Quote: Vladimirets
        Again, a cutoff on material wealth, the poor do not need protection, let them die.

        The "poor" has a choice - to drink 500 bucks or pay for a license.
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 31 October 2013 09: 31
          +3
          Quote: tan0472
          Mandatory cut-off, so that the grandmother would not start earning money, for those who do not want to pay there is a hunting weapon.

          Yeah, a well-worn stamp, probably, that is what our authorities think. request
          Quote: tan0472
          The "poor" has a choice - to drink 500 bucks or pay for a license.

          And in your opinion, if you are poor, then you must drink? 500 bucks, or about 15tyr per year, as suggested, a rather big amount for the family budget.
          1. Canep
            Canep 31 October 2013 09: 44
            -2
            If you really need protection with weapons you will go to these costs, and who needs a gun only for show-offs, let them think if these show-offs are worth such money. You pay for gas for your car, and a tax for it too (unless of course you have a car).
            1. Vladimirets
              Vladimirets 31 October 2013 09: 55
              +3
              Quote: Canep
              and who needs a gun only for show-offs, let them think whether these show-offs are worth such money.

              Just for show-offs and pay, for that they are show-offs.
              Quote: Canep
              You pay for gas for your car, and a tax for it too (unless of course you have a car).

              I do not catch the logic. The tax on transport can be explained by its impact on the environment, on roads, etc. Why the gun tax? Do people pay a little?
              1. Canep
                Canep 31 October 2013 10: 52
                -1
                Quote: Vladimirets
                I do not catch the logic.
                If you want the weapon license to be free, it’s logical to demand the abolition of the tax on cars and excise taxes on gasoline. These taxes and excises are paid even by people with disabilities who need a car in order to be able to move at all. The argument about ecology does not stand up to criticism. Look at excise tax revenues and compare them with environmental expenditures. And also my personal opinion: it seems to me that there will not be anything good if every second person has a gun in his pocket, look at what happens in the US mass shootings almost every week.
            2. Per se.
              Per se. 31 October 2013 10: 02
              +1
              Quote: Canep
              If you really need protection with weapons you will go to these costs, and who needs a gun only for show-offs, let them think if these show-offs are worth such money.
              Those who are now mad with fat, spending money on gold mobile phones and dog collars in precious stones, will sooner buy a pistol by smelling "coke", just as the entire Caucasus will legalize the wearing of military weapons here. It's not about the "right to arms", it's about super-profits on its sale, when the Russian market for military weapons opens, and the legalization of the "right to shoot" is not a noise, gas or traumatic shot, but a combat one, for a personal understanding of the degree of threat.
        2. Aliv
          Aliv 31 October 2013 16: 02
          +1
          If you believe your logic, then 80% of the population of Russia only do what they drink. I live in a big city. I have a lot of acquaintances, and three people really drink from them. But below the poverty line, almost half. Although I will not speak for your company. It can dramatically differ.
  6. pensioner
    pensioner 31 October 2013 08: 07
    0
    Somehow, the fact that our country is already fully armed is always overlooked. The number of hunting weapons in the hands of the population has exceeded 5 million. It is only legal. If you add illegal trunks and injuries to this amount, then you can reach a figure of 25% of the armed population ... Maybe enough?
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 31 October 2013 08: 47
      +4
      Quote: retired
      Somehow, the fact that our country is already fully armed is always overlooked. The number of hunting weapons in the hands of the population has exceeded 5 million.

      Can you imagine self-defense with a hunting rifle?
      1. pensioner
        pensioner 31 October 2013 09: 27
        -1
        Are you sure that the short barrel in the hands of an unprepared person will help to defend against an attack? With a greater degree of probability, he will also become a trophy of criminals than an obstacle to the implementation of a criminal plan.
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 31 October 2013 09: 57
          +3
          Quote: retired
          Are you sure that the short barrel in the hands of an unprepared person will help to defend against an attack?

          Well, before issuing the CC, you need to organize real courses, with passing exams, then it will help.
          Quote: retired
          With a greater degree of probability, he will also become a trophy of criminals than an obstacle to the implementation of a criminal plan.

          "Most likely" is just your guess.
          1. pensioner
            pensioner 31 October 2013 12: 20
            +1
            Quote: Vladimirets
            "Most likely" is just your guess.

            And I can object to this. The criminal initiative is ALWAYS. With all the consequences for the victims. For example: in Belgorod, when 2 experienced (and naturally armed) police officers detained Pomazun, one of them was seriously injured. The offender almost always begins to act unexpectedly for the victim.
        2. Normal
          Normal 31 October 2013 10: 16
          +7
          Quote: retired
          With a greater degree of probability, he will also become a trophy of criminals than an obstacle to the implementation of a criminal plan.


          Aren't you afraid to wear pants? Indeed, with a high degree of probability, they can become a trophy for criminals.
          1. pensioner
            pensioner 31 October 2013 12: 07
            0
            Quote: Normal
            Aren't you afraid to wear pants? Indeed, with a high degree of probability, they can become a trophy for criminals.

            Yes, I agree. They can. But since they can only be called weapons conditionally, they will not make the criminal even more dangerous.
            1. Normal
              Normal 31 October 2013 18: 11
              +1
              Quote: retired
              But since they can only be called weapons conditionally, they will not make the criminal even more dangerous.

              Yes, I'm not talking about that. Think not about the criminal and his danger to you or anyone else, think about yourself and your safety. Of course, it’s possible to make a criminal more dangerous with your gun, but you can make him completely safe. You have a chance, but the criminal has doubts; is it worth the attack. Now the criminal may have a trunk (he does not need permissions), but you do not. Even more than that, the criminal doesn’t need a trunk to rob a victim.
              All my life with a trunk and in my small village everyone knows this. No one has a desire to take it from me. Bad Nem!
        3. pv1005
          pv1005 31 October 2013 12: 11
          +1
          And who makes the unprepared to acquire weapons?
  7. borisjdin1957
    borisjdin1957 31 October 2013 08: 15
    12
    from the Don.
    The people are arming themselves: legally, illegally. The sane understand-the protection of life, the family is holy. And what tryndyat, so it must be worked out pennies!
  8. Samsebenaum
    Samsebenaum 31 October 2013 08: 19
    +6
    Personally, I am for the free sale of weapons to the public.
    It is important that it is in the hands of adequate people.
    The right to wear is granted after passing tests and talking with a psychologist.
    There is a risk, but the right to self-defense of a person cannot be deprived.
    and of course it’s high time to revise the article of the Criminal Code on the excess of self-defense.
    1. ele1285
      ele1285 31 October 2013 08: 33
      +1
      One trouble, in our country everything is sold and bought, including psychologists
    2. Alexei
      Alexei 31 October 2013 08: 45
      +3
      Quote: Samsebenum
      It is important that it is in the hands of adequate people

      Yes, and we have adequate people behind the wheel, both in the government and the police ... but in general they are adequate around, especially when they drink.
      Quote: Samsebenum
      and of course it’s high time to revise the article of the Criminal Code on the excess of self-defense.

      Well. After that, it will be possible to boldly beat people near the entrance, self-defense-x-li. sad
      1. Alexei
        Alexei 31 October 2013 10: 01
        +1
        But who at least spanks me minuses? Did I come up with something? Or maybe he inadvertently wounded someone's beliefs? smile
      2. Normal
        Normal 31 October 2013 10: 21
        +1
        Quote: Alexej
        we have adequate people, both in the government and the police ..

        Imagine that in the structures indicated by you all are armed.
        Quote: Alexej
        especially when they drink.

        Then, according to your logic, you can only drink handcuffed to the battery, because there are knives and forks on the forge, and a hammer and screwdrivers are in the pantry.
        1. Alexei
          Alexei 31 October 2013 10: 48
          +2
          Quote: Normal
          Then, according to your logic, you can only drink handcuffed to the battery, because there are knives and forks on the forge, and a hammer and screwdrivers are in the pantry.

          Duck and chop with a hammer, forks and screwdrivers. You talk with doctors, they have a lot of customers chopped and knocked on holidays. In addition, with knives, the attack may not roll-50 to 50, and you don’t need to strain specifically with the pistol, just a slight movement with your index finger.
          Quote: Normal
          Imagine that in the structures indicated by you all are armed.

          Ah, so you are going to shoot from them? Well, armed, so what? Ask how often they use it. Believe me, it will not help you in any way, but it will reward you with extra responsibility and bunting.
          1. Normal
            Normal 31 October 2013 18: 22
            +2
            Quote: Alexej
            In addition, with melee weapons, the attack may not roll 50 to 50, but you don’t need to strain especially hard with a pistol, just a slight movement with your index finger.

            Again the same mistake. You don't worry about criminals; they already have trunks. And not about those who hammer hammers and knives. You think of YOURSELF and YOUR safety, at least from those who have cold weapons and are empty in their heads.
            Quote: Alexej
            Ah, so you are going to shoot from them? Well, armed, so what? Ask how often they use it. Believe me, it will not help you in any way, but it will reward you with excess responsibility and bunting

            No need to juggle. Not from law enforcement officers I am going to shoot back, you all perfectly understand. But if you follow your logic, then the police must be disarmed, because they do not use weapons often. And still it is necessary to disarm the sentries in the army, why is the watch weapon? Anyway, he almost never uses it. I, for example, for the service - not once. Only responsibility and bunts from him
    3. sergey261180
      sergey261180 31 October 2013 09: 32
      +3
      Quote: Samsebenum
      Personally, I am for the free sale of weapons to the public.
      It is important that it is in the hands of adequate people.
      The right to wear is granted after passing tests and talking with a psychologist.
      35 thousand people die on the roads every year. Most of them have a certificate from a doctor that they are "adequate" and a certificate from traffic cops that they know how to drive.
      It is not difficult to guess how many additional corpses will appear from the "legalization" of weapons.
      1. Alexei
        Alexei 31 October 2013 10: 16
        0
        Quote: sergey261180
        It is not difficult to guess how many additional corpses will appear from the "legalization" of weapons.

        I don’t care how many corpses there will be, because the main thing is that supporters of the legalization of firearms should be calm and confident.
      2. Normal
        Normal 31 October 2013 10: 25
        +7
        Quote: sergey261180
        35 thousand people die on the roads every year. Most of them have a certificate from a doctor that they are "adequate" and a certificate from traffic cops that they know how to drive.
        It is not difficult to guess how many additional corpses will appear from the "legalization" of weapons.

        Correctly! Deny free sale of cars! Only cops, deputies, senators, judges and the military should have the right to drive a car.
        It is easy to imagine how many lives can be saved!
      3. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 31 October 2013 10: 33
        +3
        Quote: sergey261180
        It is not difficult to guess how many additional corpses will appear from the "legalization" of weapons.

        Nonsense. There will certainly be random corpses, but the total number of violent crimes and deaths will fall significantly.
        1. Alexei
          Alexei 31 October 2013 11: 03
          0
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          Nonsense. There will certainly be random corpses, but the total number of violent crimes and deaths will fall significantly.

          But why? How will it fall? After all, violent, and indeed any crime, occurs almost always unexpectedly, and weapons - at home, and even in the safe. Guests of the house will have time to break through the skull three times before you reach the safe. And indeed, if an enemy half a meter away from you (and this basically happens) doesn’t bring you the trunk you need to get it, remove it from the fuse and point it at the offender, who (of course) will observe all this and do nothing at all.
          1. Rakti-kali
            Rakti-kali 31 October 2013 16: 50
            +1
            Quote: Alexej
            But why? How will it fall? After all, violent, and indeed any crime, occurs almost always unexpectedly, and weapons - at home, and even in the safe.

            They write to you in Russian - "the right to free acquisition, storage and wearing short-barreled weapons. "So about the safe past the cash register.
            And indeed, if an enemy half a meter away from you (and this basically happens) doesn’t bring you the trunk you need to get it, remove it from the fuse and point it at the offender, who (of course) will observe all this and do nothing at all.

            In Ukraine, there was already a precedent when one person in a situation where one guard holds his hand, the second searches, and the third watches them - he was able to get a gun and shot 4 security guards of the supermarket. So with this you are in flight.
        2. sergey261180
          sergey261180 31 October 2013 11: 06
          -2
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          Nonsense. Random corpses will certainly be

          There will be many more of them than from crime. Matches for children are not a toy, but pistols for imbitsilam and downs, of which in bulk!
  9. makarov
    makarov 31 October 2013 08: 25
    +6
    A permanent step to solve the legalization of the right of a short-barreled gun, in my opinion, was the legalization of the right to storage. Thus, a person gains the right to protect his property, his family, and himself with arms. But only if he took the weapon out of the house, the inevitable responsibility comes. Using modern technologies, the implementation of the described scheme is quite real.
    1. Alexei
      Alexei 31 October 2013 09: 51
      -1
      Quote: makarov
      Thus, a person gains the right to protect his property, his family, and himself with arms.

      Exactly, because now thieves and bandits are in fashion to break into the apartments in which the owners of the house. All to be honest: first they hammer on the door, and then they begin to break it, while they do it, the owner (the lucky owner of the weapon) will get his "guarantor of a quiet life" and will meet the impudent people fully armed. So? Or here: "burglaries are a thing of the past, as" burglars "are afraid to meet an armed owner." Or "everyday things have become a rarity, because pistols have appeared in apartments, pistols are a guarantee of family well-being and understanding." Not funny?
      1. Alexei
        Alexei 31 October 2013 10: 04
        -2
        Again, I hurt someone's fragile worldview? laughing
        1. Sunjar
          Sunjar 31 October 2013 11: 01
          +8
          And to you personally they broke into the door for the purpose of murder? They were breaking into me. They tried to open the door with an ax and crowbars. There were five of them. And I stood outside the door with a knife in my hand and was ready to stick one hundred percent into the first knife that broke into my house in the throat. I would cut a couple, and the rest would collapse and scatter. But if I had a weapon, then I would not wait and would have blundered a few shots through the door. So yes - fully armed. Family life and its own for me is more important than the life of criminals and the impending term for exceeding self-defense.
          1. Alexei
            Alexei 31 October 2013 11: 17
            -8
            Quote: Sunjar
            They were breaking into me. They tried to open the door with an ax and crowbars

            Are you not a criminal yourself?
            There were five of them
            and it became - seven, so take pregnant women with you on a campaign. smile Now imagine that one of them grabbed his trunk from the house, or not one but two of them with trunks? And in general, when you grab a bite, think a little how it can affect you and your family. Why home? I would duck in the street would grab you in their place.
            1. Sunjar
              Sunjar 31 October 2013 12: 24
              +1
              Alexej, read carefully. You confused the word seven with the word family (mother, father). So your humor is not appropriate. You should also be careful with the conclusions. You don’t know the situation, but you already thought that I’ve downloaded something somewhere. You have the opportunity to clarify the situation before drawing conclusions.

              Let me explain to you: the reason for the attack on me was the fact that one criminal (not so long ago at that time freed himself from places not so distant) played music at full volume for the third day in a row, and my father went to ask him to turn off the music (without swearing and running over ) To which the criminal began to promise to tear off my father’s head, for which he actually got a nose and was hammered into a corner. After which he complained to his older brother (also sitting), who brought with him the same ones as he. And they didn’t catch me on the street because I was near the house and saw the scumbags in time.

              And you know me so well that you are able to use something productive in order to grab me on the street?
              1. Alexei
                Alexei 31 October 2013 12: 48
                -3
                Quote: Sunjar
                one criminal (not so long ago at that time freed himself from places not so distant) played music at full volume for the third day in a row, and my father went to ask him to turn off the music (without swearing and arrivals).

                Again few clarifications. What time did this chanson listening take place? If after 23.00, then this is the work of the police. Imagine, we go to apartments, jam music. I don’t remember the law exactly, but there’s a trick for lovers of loud music in the night.
                If you often find yourself in such situations, then break through a hunting ticket and a gun.
                Quote: Sunjar
                To which the criminal began to promise to tear my father’s head off
                Did you immediately give him a nose, or at first did you promise to tear his head off yourself?
                Quote: Sunjar
                And you know me so well that you are able to use something productive in order to grab me on the street?
                I can’t use anything productive in any case, my knee is knocked out during training, I can’t walk on sick leave.
                1. Sunjar
                  Sunjar 31 October 2013 13: 04
                  +1
                  Alexay, again you read inattentively. For the third day in a row - this means that they did not turn off the music for more than two days at all. In the village where the parents live, one policeman is weak-minded: because of his non-participation, in the same village a group of other more frostbitten people killed a total of five to six people. He knew that they walk with knives and threaten the local population, but did not begin to do anything. Of course, thugs were planted for life, but people still can not be returned.

                  The nose broke immediately and without talking. I'm not going to endure or watch someone shake my loved ones by the breasts.

                  it’s very good that you exercise.
                  1. Alexei
                    Alexei 31 October 2013 13: 51
                    -1
                    Quote: Sunjar
                    In the village where the parents live, one policeman is weak-minded: because of his non-participation, in the same village a group of other more frostbitten people killed a total of five to six people. He knew that they walk with knives and threaten the local population, but did not begin to do anything. Of course, thugs were planted for life, but people still can not be returned.

                    Well, if there are such villages in Mother Russia, there should be firearms ... In such villages where there is no law, it is possible to acquire weapons unlawfully. Grumble and bury. But it is not worth introducing into the broad masses of the people.
                    1. Max otto
                      Max otto 31 October 2013 16: 51
                      0
                      Quote: Alexej

                      Well, if there are such villages in Mother Russia, there should be firearms ... In such villages where there is no law, it is possible to acquire weapons unlawfully. Grumble and bury. But it is not worth introducing into the broad masses of the people.

                      Aleksey, despite the fact that you are against weapons, but I swear you swear that after stoned people burst into your house in the middle of the night, you will run to the nearest leshoz to get a hunting ticket almost the next morning. Believe my experience. In apartment buildings, this is of course not relevant, but it will not hurt the residents of the private sector. And although in my case everything ended happily (a drunken company mixed up the house, when they saw me with an ax, they apologized and left), but the sediment remained. And now I have been a hunter for 3,5 years, although I have not killed a single animal. Only on targets and banks. And I do not mind having a gun, in everyday life I do not need it, but it is more convenient to move around the house with it than with a carbine or rifle.
                      1. Alexei
                        Alexei 1 November 2013 04: 39
                        -2
                        Yes nifiga not convinced. They broke into me and shot me a couple of times in the course of past activities (semi-legal). Yes, scary, but everything is solved. And it will be much worse and more dangerous when almost every person can arrange a trunk for himself, I swear you an oath, much worse.
  10. rereture
    rereture 31 October 2013 09: 09
    -3
    And then our police children with plastic weapons will be killed?

    Shooting in kindergartens, schools, and in all areas free of weapons?

    It’s just that someone doesn’t have a gun on his belt for the image of the hero of an action movie, or a cowboy who first snatches a gun and hits a heap in the eye ..

    Serfs can be slaves, smooth-bore can, rifles are possible, but they apparently are not considered weapons.
  11. vlad0
    vlad0 31 October 2013 09: 24
    +1
    The threshold for using weapons is significantly underestimated due to the widespread use of pneumatics and traumatism. Probably, the prohibition of the sale and wearing of these types, and the resolution of the short trunk will be able to rectify the situation. But at the same time, the procedure for training and obtaining a license for it should be much tougher than obtaining rights to cars, annual shootings and passing tests are obligatory.
  12. sigdoc
    sigdoc 31 October 2013 09: 33
    +1
    Back to the Middle Ages!
  13. Sunjar
    Sunjar 31 October 2013 09: 34
    +5
    The question is actually much more complicated than it seems at first glance. Yes, the authorities are really afraid to arm their citizens. But there is an important other side of the coin. The population is completely frostbitten: drunken fights in bars, showdowns with bats on the roads, personal insults to neighbors, superiors, etc. etc.

    Not so long ago in one small town there was a case: two guys got into a drunken fight in a bar, then went home. But one harbored a grudge, gathered friends for revenge, taking at the same time a hunting rifle, and they went to a car to take revenge. Another participant in the conflict noticed in time that a bunch of people were approaching him, quickly ran into his house and grabbed an AK-74 for disassembly (where he got it from is still unclear: the investigators are silent). A group of avengers armed with a hunting rifle got out of the car and met with the object of revenge face to face, seeing that the Kalash guy had one of them decided to be the first to open fire and wound the guy in the leg, he responded by firing a turn at them. As a result, several bullets hit one of the avengers and he naturally moved the horses, while the rest fled. The guy was jailed.

    Given the criminality of the population (a lot of people, especially young people, live according to criminal concepts), the result will not be long in coming. Therefore, for our country, armed people are polite people, it is not appropriate. Statistics in the same USA are very sad. People now and then move off the reel and arrange slaughter. All there is an incredible number of gangs. Our Russian young animals will immediately begin to stray into even larger flocks, and will begin to sort out among themselves, and they will also begin to pinch others.

    At the moment, I consider it extremely dangerous to allow the free trade in arms.

    The boundaries of permissible self-defense is another important issue. And the fact that the "elite" puts forward such heinous laws that benefit criminals and directed against citizens is a real fact, but the presence of all and all weapons will not affect the essence of these laws. Those in power will still be unpunished, and ordinary citizens will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
    1. corn
      corn 1 November 2013 01: 25
      +1
      one frostbitten was killed, the second frostbitten sits, part of the frostbitten brains thawed, which is bad.
  14. artifox
    artifox 31 October 2013 09: 51
    +2
    No need for weapons. Who needs to walk with traumatism. At the same time, with the same trauma, a lot of incidents because of which they want to ban it. And what will happen when combat is legalized? I don’t know how the rest of Russia is, but for example, the Rostov Region, Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories will certainly drown in skirmishes ... At least that is my opinion. And I think everyone understands why. About Moscow, in the light of the pogroms in Biryulyovo, I generally keep quiet ...
  15. uhjpysq1
    uhjpysq1 31 October 2013 09: 56
    +1
    here you don’t need to sing songs here that the people are criminogenic and you can’t arm them. Pistols are quite expensive things and many simply can’t afford them.
  16. nemec55
    nemec55 31 October 2013 10: 04
    +3
    Not well, what a fool (official) will sign a sentence ??????? He stole - filled up, knocked over drunk filled up, Appeared in a gay club - filled up with transfers. He did not fulfill the promises of the election - filled up. He stole money offshore - filled up. And will they be for the legalization of weapons ??????.
    1. rereture
      rereture 31 October 2013 11: 58
      0
      Someone doesn’t see the deputy being shot with a rifle or with a gun, you think as soon as the cop appears, will they be shot? You are mistaken
  17. nemec55
    nemec55 31 October 2013 10: 05
    +1
    Not well, what a fool (official) will sign a sentence ??????? He stole - filled up, knocked over drunk filled up, Appeared in a gay club - filled up with transfers. He did not fulfill the promises of the election - filled up. He stole money offshore - filled up. And will they be for the legalization of weapons ??????.
  18. polly
    polly 31 October 2013 10: 35
    0
    The article somehow appeared "in time", especially after Biryulyovo. We must again stir up the interest of the people to the dirty topic!
  19. MRomanovich
    MRomanovich 31 October 2013 10: 46
    -4
    I do not know what the people who demand the legalization of short-barreled weapons are actually guided by - their fears, complexes, internal or bodily weakness, but hardly thoughts about our safety. One thing is certain - this legalization must never be allowed. Let's take a look at trauma. All these fines, suspended sentences leave in the minds of people a persistent idea that one can get out of "hooliganism" with traumatics and, if desired, avoid severe punishment. Ideally, it should be so that the use of any weapon not to protect life and health should be punished exclusively by a prison term, not forgetting about moral and material damage. In a word, if you shoot at a wedding or on the street (it doesn't matter in Moscow or in aul) - get a term, shoot a car that does not give way - again a term, etc. Until then, they will shoot on the case and without. And what kind of firearms can we talk about after that?
    1. understudy
      understudy 31 October 2013 11: 19
      +7
      Quote: MRomanovich
      I don’t know what the people who require the legalization of short-range weapons are guided by - their fears, complexes, weaknesses of their internal or physical, but hardly thoughts of our safety.


      I strongly recommend reading the book by D. Koretsky "Criminal armalogy. The doctrine of the legal regime of weapons". The author of this work, if not in the know, Doctor of Law, Professor, Police Colonel, Honored Lawyer of Russia, Honorary Officer of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, member of the Writers' Union ... worked in the Prosecutor's Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. So, he consistently and "categorically" defends the right of citizens to legally acquire pistols and revolvers to protect themselves from criminals who have no problems getting a barrel.
      A thought flashed ... there are no problems with trellis in power and in criminals. What is it for? repeat
      1. George
        George 31 October 2013 12: 14
        +1
        Quote: Understudy
        I strongly recommend reading the book by D. Koretsky "Criminal armalogy. The doctrine of the legal regime of weapons".

        I support. It is worth paying attention to the "Time of the Innocent".
  20. understudy
    understudy 31 October 2013 10: 49
    +2
    "One should not look for logic where there is only cowardice and corrupt interest. The highest hierarchs of power structures are guarded around the clock by the armed FSO and do not deprive themselves of premium weapons ..." (c)

    It is difficult to add something fundamentally new to this phrase, which defines the essence of ALL "our" power. "Forbid and do not let go!" Why do some Kozhevnikova, Khorkina and other Kabaevs have a real opportunity to own a premium barrel, and those who have "forgotten" a quarter of a century of service in the security forces behind them are deprived of this right ??? Based on what motivation ???
    1. Starfish
      Starfish 31 October 2013 10: 54
      0
      "and those who have" forgotten "a quarter of a century of service in the security forces behind them are deprived of this right ??? Based on what motivation ???"

      to remind Kvachkov, Khabarov? high-ranking thieves are afraid of the people, and especially those who know how to handle weapons.
    2. Fin
      Fin 31 October 2013 11: 30
      0
      Quote: Understudy
      Why do some Kozhevnikova, Khorkina and other Kabaevs have a real opportunity to own a premium barrel, and those who have "forgotten" a quarter of a century of service in the security forces behind them are deprived of this right ???

      I don’t know why you are deprived of this. In 1993, my friend officer legally with permission bought Saigu. What is stopping you?
      1. understudy
        understudy 31 October 2013 11: 41
        0
        Quote: Fin
        In 1993, my friend officer legally with permission bought Saigu. What is stopping you?


        Very happy for your friend.
        However, I don’t envy him, because since 90 there is a six-shot Winchester and a domestic hunting rifle in personal use. I will not mention the officially issued "Beretta-Brigadier" and the Turkish "Shark".
        1. Fin
          Fin 31 October 2013 12: 16
          -1
          Quote: Understudy
          However, I do not envy him, for

          So what? Do you have enough trunks? Do enemies constantly surround you with the support of tanks?
          1. understudy
            understudy 1 November 2013 11: 34
            0
            Quote: Fin
            Do you have enough trunks? Enemies constantly surround the chain

            This is not about the number of trunks, but about the LAW. And how I use it is my own business.
            Botanists and other white riders can collect autumn leaves and collect lace bras. This is their right. As a career officer, I have "somewhat" other hobbies.
            1. Fin
              Fin 1 November 2013 20: 40
              -2
              Quote: Understudy
              This is not about the number of trunks, but about the LAW. And how I use it is my own business.
              Botanists and other white riders can collect autumn leaves and collect lace bras. This is their right. As a career officer, I have "somewhat" other hobbies.

              Judging by the warlike statements, you lack goals, victims, thrills. Legally own weapons, but there is no one to show boast except for hunting friends. And if you could walk with him along the street ... It's time to get used to peaceful life, the databases for you have already ended with retirement.
              About nerds and bras. First, look at my profile, and then slap your tongue, or thinking is not your main trait.
              1. understudy
                understudy 1 November 2013 21: 15
                +1
                To me this virtual "profile", to put it mildly, up to one place, more lieutenant colonels were also political fighters - "loyal Leninists", who were the first to step over their "principled" beliefs. Sowing an ineradicable cohort has always kept its scent in accordance with ...

                And what is so painfully perceived lace products ??? lol
                1. Fin
                  Fin 1 November 2013 22: 53
                  0
                  Quote: Understudy
                  To me this virtual "profile", to put it mildly, up to one place, more lieutenant colonels were also political fighters - "loyal Leninists", who were the first to step over their "principled" beliefs. Sowing an ineradicable cohort has always kept its scent in accordance with ...
                  And what is so painfully perceived lace products ??? lol

                  Bo military (personnel) officers on the site can also be called anyone. I knew those who flew in for a couple of days, and then orders, medals ..., and heel in the chest, yes I .... This does not put on display.
                  Why painful, really love this thing. But I also understand you, service was in the first place, we lost a lot.
          2. The comment was deleted.
  21. MRomanovich
    MRomanovich 31 October 2013 11: 18
    -2
    Quote: Starfish
    high-ranking thieves are afraid of the people, and especially those who know how to handle weapons.

    High-ranking comrades, by the way, are not all thieves, on the contrary, they are afraid of people who can’t handle weapons, and most of them are in our society. If most people were aware of the responsibility of owning weapons, even if traumatic, then there would be little concern for firearms. This can only be achieved with extremely harsh penalties for the unlawful use of weapons. Given how and where trauma is currently used in most cases, it becomes uncomfortable with the thought of what will happen after the resolution of the firearm.
  22. gorozhanin
    gorozhanin 31 October 2013 11: 27
    +5
    The issue of civilian weapons is a matter of self-esteem.
    He should not stand in a healthy society at all, because having a home, a horse (now an iron one of course) and weapons are indispensable attributes of a free citizen at all times.
    Because if you have a home, a woman and children, you should be able to protect their health and honor from bandits.
    And even in a weak state - even more so.

    Another thing is that you need strict licensing for the short barrel. Of course.
    But nothing prevents you from issuing a short-barrel license only after several years of owning injuries (this will cut off youngsters and fools) as is done with a rifled long-barrel.

    In addition, I consider it necessary even to pursue a policy that ensures the armament of the category of men, which is "supporting" for our country - people with a residency qualification, a family with children, good living conditions, not to mention the officers who were transferred to the reserve. Work with this population in training and keeping fit (creating virtual "partisan" detachments, organizing visits to shooting ranges and ranges, tactical exercises, government support for hunting clubs ...)
    Because these people are the foundation of any society. In the event of force majeure circumstances, when state systems are paralyzed or overloaded, it is only self-defense units that can positively affect the situation.
  23. understudy
    understudy 31 October 2013 11: 33
    +2
    Quote: MRomanovich
    Given how and where trauma is currently used in most cases, it becomes uncomfortable with the thought of what will happen after the resolution of the firearm.

    But actually, what happens to injuries? Personally, I can note that some representatives of the Caucasian republics, who have passed the USE with "excellent", do not always remain adequate during the period of subsequent puberty.
    In the hands of the population about 3 million rubber spitters, the number of those killed is approaching a hundred. The main reason for the unlawful use of the PLO is the "frivolous attitude" to these weapons, the consequences of its use are simply not calculated. It is unlikely that this will happen with the COP, because it does not injure, but kills.
    Do you need to give statistics on serious crimes using household items?
  24. MRomanovich
    MRomanovich 31 October 2013 11: 39
    0
    Quote: Understudy
    I strongly recommend reading the book by D. Koretsky "Criminal armalogy. The doctrine of the legal regime of weapons". The author of this work, if not in the know, Doctor of Law, Professor, Police Colonel, Honored Lawyer of Russia, Honorary Officer of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, member of the Writers' Union ... worked in the Prosecutor's Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. So, he consistently and "categorically" defends the right of citizens to legally acquire pistols and revolvers to protect themselves from criminals who have no problems getting a barrel.
    A thought flashed ... there are no problems with trellis in power and in criminals. What is it for?

    Consideration of the issue of permitting weapons is possible only if there is an imminent, extremely severe punishment for its unlawful use. Without this, the consciousness of people cannot be changed, therefore, the number of crimes associated with the use of weapons will increase with permission. If the inevitability of punishment is respected, it will be possible to restrain the growth of such crimes, and then even an automaton can be allowed.
  25. Maaslo Sallonen
    Maaslo Sallonen 31 October 2013 11: 44
    +1
    The rule of law in the countries listed by the author is determined not by the presence of weapons among the population, but by the implementation of laws for everyone and everyone in the country, the ability of the state to find and punish a criminal. It is sad to read that ".. before the revolution in Russia there was a free sale of weapons ....". Yes, and then there was a revolution (with consequences). And the "child", having freed himself from the "diapers", falls, getting bruises, and in the context of weapons, blood is shed before the culture of weapons is formed. Maria's ability to wield a weapon (unfortunately I don't know the middle name) is respectful. It's close to me. But, the criminal shoots first. Nobody will give you a chance and stop the "duel". Fearing that the victim might be armed, they will shoot in the back. If you, Maria, open fire first, you will be the culprit yourself. (No need to discuss the details - each case is unique.) I confess I have great doubts about the fairness of our judicial system, to say the least. This doubt just pushes people to lynching, but, and again: learn history. Russia does not stand still, compare. And free sale is the strongest incentive and temptation to lynching and punishment. In addition, it is not difficult to take away a weapon if it is known for sure that the owner is wearing it. Even you, Maria. And the database on the owners, and such will be created, will sooner or later be available to those who wish.
  26. MRomanovich
    MRomanovich 31 October 2013 11: 47
    -1
    Quote: Understudy
    The main reason for the unlawful use of the PLO is the "frivolous attitude" to these weapons, the consequences of its use are simply not calculated.

    I agree with this 100%, but the trouble is that this "miscalculation of the consequences" will continue indefinitely until the responsibility is toughened.
  27. frosa66
    frosa66 31 October 2013 12: 03
    +7
    no need to mix firearms and trauma mats! while working in the police department, 9 years old had permission to carry weapons constantly: you clearly know that this is a WEAPON! it kills, its use is prescribed, and most importantly, your opponent also knows that it kills a correspondingly reduced aggression. and with the "trauma" we were told that it was practically a toy, the very name is traumatic, that is, it will hurt and will stop, therefore, they smack to the left and right.
    look at Moldova: they introduced trunks-street crimes-70% down, heavy down, but for this:
    1.Changed the law on application (no warning in case of a threat to life and HEALTH or when entering private territory, but unlawful application is a real time!)
    2. for the loss - a criminal case with a machine gun, the trunk floated out for a "serious" term for complicity
    3.min.price-barrel-in the region of 300,, green "(for Moldrva big money)
    4. injuries are forbidden! People clearly understand-if the trunk is a corpse
    5. violation of storage and wearing - deprivation of permission, entailed grave consequences-term.
    you weigh everything a hundred times-need-do not need you personally.
    6. The criminal liability of the signatory doctors and the inspector who issued the permit.
    1. Letnab
      Letnab 31 October 2013 15: 24
      +2
      Very reasonable rules of ownership of the COP!
      I especially like the 6th point .. because of it, many officials will be against the general permission to own weapons.
      This item is needed in the rules for the acquisition of both hunting weapons and auto rights!
    2. tracer
      tracer 31 October 2013 17: 58
      +2
      Unfortunately, few people understand the deep processes of crime. And they are often very simple. Feelings of superiority and impunity. One lady sincerely trying to understand the weapon theme gave out "After all, you can kill with a word" .... Probably, in her opinion, outfits, style, not that dress, (not fashionable things) in general, weapons of mass destruction are more terrible than any oiled piece of iron. But fortunately ... not everyone is so sensitive to these kinds of damaging factors. Any criminal, armed like a wolf in a flock of sheep, can cut everyone from right to left ..... While the wolfhounds come running, he will drink blood already. A lot of idiots are simply beguiling by linking "Weapons + free sale". In no case. Leaving state control is simply necessary and no other. BUT ... responsibility for the use of weapons must be tightened and made inevitable. For example, a doctor bribe gave a certificate to a debiloid for money ... God forbid, the bastard decided to air it out in public. So not only the doctor bribe-taker himself should go to saw the northern forests, but the head physician should fly from the place instantly. A dead fight ... I pulled out the combat barrel ... That's it ... go sit for a couple of years, plus forever losing the opportunity to have a weapon. BOTH everyone should know it like two and two. This is the only way to establish order in the streets (in any case, it will significantly help), and citizens will receive the right to protect their lives and health. I am not even talking about economic benefits for the economy, although it can be huge. And traumatics should be banned altogether as the most dangerous and lethal means, too. Anyone who raises a firearm on a person should know that he instantly puts, first of all, his life "on KON", and these may be the last moments of his life.
  28. Begemot
    Begemot 31 October 2013 13: 25
    0
    He shot down drunk, he appeared, Appeared in a gay club –– filled up with the transfers. He didn’t fulfill the promises of the election –– filled up. He took the money to offshore –– filled up. (End of quote)

    That is precisely why I personally, being neither an official nor an elite, living in an ordinary mid-sized city district, do not think that it is time to legalize weapons. Massacres and executions for a parking space, for a table in a restaurant, for a scratched car, stepped on the wrong foot, looked wrong, spoke to a girl without permission, went into the wrong yard, etc., etc., the list is endless. Abdullah from the White Sun of the Desert said: a dagger is good for the one who has and bad for the one who does not. This is a typical gangster psychology. The pathological desire to possess a weapon comes from an inner awareness of one's weakness and the desire to have an advantage at the expense of a pistol, because "more can be done with a kind word and a pistol than just a kind word." In order for the pistol to give a chance to defend itself, you will have to carry it in your hand, openly, cocked, as in a Western, otherwise you won't even have time to grab it, because knowing that you may have a pistol, the criminal will simply smash your head with a bat from behind for the sake of to pick up a watch, a wallet, and of course, a pistol. Conversely, for an attack, the pistol can be hidden until the last moment and pulled out only at the last moment. And the showdown in the style: who are you? - and who are you? with the subsequent demonstration of weapons, they will end in favor of the one who is more frostbitten on his head and is ready to start firing for any reason. Comparing us with the same Americans is incorrect, for 200 years they have at the genetic level reduced the number of thugs who are ready to shoot indiscriminately at everyone they don't like, hanging killers in batches, but judging by the regular shootings, they are still up to the end with this topic failed. Do we need it? Ask the relatives of those who were shot by Vinogradov. He used legal weapons.
    And not so long ago I witnessed the scene, as some dushman persuaded a seller in an arms store to sell a combat pistol under a gas license. They, too, will buy legal weapons, even earlier than you, and moving forward on business, on the way to your apartment for a robbery, will demonstrate with a smile to the police permission to store and carry, and they will not be able to do anything. This is a big illusion that in such a simple way as the legalization of weapons it is possible to solve such complex tasks as the fight against crime.
  29. George
    George 31 October 2013 15: 17
    +3
    Quote: Begemot
    The pathological desire to possess weapons comes from an internal awareness of one's weakness and the desire to have an advantage with a pistol

    A lot of respected people have weapons, in the Caucasus they kept and carried (even cold steel) despite the prohibitions, and so what? Do you think all these people are pathological underpants?
    Weapons are the oldest subject of material culture, which in many respects determined the development of mankind and the direction of its historical development, once mandatory for quotation, and now completely forgotten F. Engels (who, by the way, was a connoisseur of weapons and the author of deep and professional articles about the history of rifles and peculiarities of artillery shooting) quite rightly noted: “Labor begins with the manufacture of tools ... These tools are hunting and fishing tools; the former are also weapons. ”

    If you change the thesis about that. Since labor created man from a monkey, it can be argued that this transformation occurred largely due to weapons. However, the development process of the species Homo sapiens at the earliest stages was characterized by the specific use of weapons. "The first tools of man: he immediately used fire and stone to kill and fry his brethren."

    And the whole subsequent history of mankind is associated with the use of weapons to destroy or subjugate their own kind. This person is fundamentally different from other living things. Even those with powerful natural weapons - fangs, claws. - Wolves, lions and tigers do not kill their own kind. Konrad Lorenz explains this situation as follows: the inhibitory mechanisms that inhibit aggression are most important and therefore most developed in those animals that are able to easily kill a creature of about its size. Man is a relatively safe omnivorous creature, which does not have a natural weapon belonging to his body, with which he could kill a large animal. That is why he does not have those security mechanisms that have arisen in the process of evolution, which prevent the use of weapons against relatives.

    When the invention of artificial weapons opened up new possibilities for killing, the previous balance between the relatively weak prohibitions of aggression and the same weak possibilities of killing was fundamentally upset.

    Thus, weapons are a special subject of the material world, because contrary to the natural instinct of procreation, to which all inventions and discoveries of man are subordinated to a greater or lesser degree of mediation, weapons serve as a means of destroying their own kind, that is, in principle, contradicts the purpose of human activity.

    Perhaps that is why weapons have an attractive force (often irrational) and have become an integral element of human culture. It has such an effect on the minds that the name Makarov is not associated with the famous Russian admiral, but with the creator of the most common Russian pistol. Surname Browning - not with the poet Robert Browning, but with John Moses Browning - the inventor of the small-sized self-loading pistol. The German conductor Bruno Walter is inferior in fame to his namesake Carl Walter - the founder of the arms company.

    The household names were the names of the German inventor Wilhelm Mauser, the Belgian Leon Nagan, and domestic designers Tokarev. Degtyareva. Kalashnikov ... The latter personifies the symbol of military power of the Soviet Union and those regimes that the Union supported.

    Quote from "Time of the Innocent" by D. Koretsky.
    1. Begemot
      Begemot 31 October 2013 17: 44
      +2
      I have 5 trunks myself, of which 3 are rifled, but to consider them as a means of defense has never been a temptation. About the Caucasus is not necessary, in the jungle Papuans also do not part with weapons. This is another civilization. Whether they are cowards or not is a rhetorical question. If for them a weapon is an object of aesthetics, hang it on the wall and admire it, if it’s still a weapon, then why are you wearing it: to kill? bully? or in order to feel superior because you have a little gun.
      1. George
        George 1 November 2013 00: 02
        +1
        Quote: Begemot
        If for them a weapon is an aesthetic, hang it on the wall and admire it.

        The Japanese say "If you need a sword at least once in your life, you should always wear it." No, I certainly do not want to say that I live in places where you cannot survive without jogging with a Kalash with ripples and crawls, but the criminal will consider what I have in the first place as a weapon and a means to fight back, even if I wear it for aesthetic reasons.
        Quote: Begemot
        if this is a weapon, then why are you wearing it: to kill? bully? or in order to feel superior because you have a little gun.

        Gangsters decide to attack precisely out of a sense of their own superiority (which is largely due to the possession of weapons), which makes them mentally charged, but in the case when the offender can run into a bullet, this will cool his ardor. I am sure of that. When the benefit of committing a crime is lower than the risk of a possible punishment, then it will only dare to dare.
  30. xcvxc73
    xcvxc73 31 October 2013 15: 26
    -1
    accidentally stumbled upon a site that allows you to challenge fines online, at the beginning I didn’t believe it, I thought it was a divorce, but I decided to try and imagine it turned out: one of the 3 fines was canceled. Hooray, I saved almost 4000 rubles. here try it yourself, modet and you will succeed. here is a link to the service http://safe.mn/bazam
  31. Grishka100watt
    Grishka100watt 31 October 2013 16: 00
    +1
    Nonsense. Some sort of Mistral, Ministry of Defense ...

    Who will you shoot at, Maria?
  32. tracer
    tracer 31 October 2013 17: 39
    +3
    I am convinced, like many others, that a "weapon" - a weapon makes a person. All the rat fuss about the very word WEAPON is nothing more than a rat. An ax in hand or a fork, a weapon no less terrible than a pistol. The weapon should not be afraid as such. They need to be able to use and respect the laws of the state granting such a right. In the country of Russia there are millions of barrels of hunting weapons, but no one makes cutoffs and everyone does not wear them under a hollow. It is necessary to give people the opportunity to defend their lives by all available methods and methods. (In reasonable terms, of course). For example, in the state of Texas (well, it was recently), weapons are sold everywhere, of any taste and color and nothing, there are no barricades and shootings, on the contrary, this is the state with the lowest use of firearms in crimes. And the people are polite and smiling))) Why? Guess for yourself. To catch a bullet to a criminal, always, even an old lady next door will help by delivering a pink pistol and banging at the villain. But there is no "free sale of arms" (it is free if you were always clean before the law). But as soon as you otchuchuh something "sort of", or shoot at living people ... They will put themselves on the spot very quickly and efficiently. Scene ........ "lovers of unarmed homodemocracies weep". Something tells me that there will not be an affordable self-defense weapon (short-barreled) in Russia for a very long time. And the use of weapons, even the ones that are, for self-defense purposes will be severely punished by justice. Someone constantly confuses the CAUSE and the EFFECT in the lawmakers.
  33. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 31 October 2013 17: 54
    +4
    All this is bullshit! I remember how in early childhood (somewhere in the early 50s) my father went to the store and bought a 16-gauge double-barreled gun and did not go to the police, etc., etc. Yes, and it hung in the parents' bedroom on the carpet (although Dad kept the cartridges in a chest). I grew up on the Kursk Bulge and the first toys were real rifles, pistols and much more, but in my memory no one killed anyone. And the police in those years they were not afraid, but loved and respected ... In the general store next to kerosene and salt (I remember that very well) there were small-caliber rifles and cartridges for them, and the price for them was quite ridiculous: somewhere the price of 6 bottles of vodka. And now even if you will be bursting with a chopped-up addict with an ax and you will inadvertently (defending yourself) knock him down - crackers! that "hot" Caucasian guys almost without exception have guns without any permission is the correct national policy. Yes, they have become insolent to the point that they shoot under the walls of the Kremlin (read under the windows of the Guarantor)!
  34. Kite
    Kite 31 October 2013 19: 06
    0
    Quote: "The blood of enemies of society, lawbreakers, rapists, murderers and robbers must be shed if we do not want the blood of law-abiding citizens, your wives, children and the elderly to shed. Surgery can just as well be called a bloody industry, in which between others are much more likely to experience errors and failures than gun owners. "
    - Does anyone still doubt that the author of the article has obvious mental problems, inadequacy?
    So I fear that dreaming about owning a short-barrel is not the most reasonable and calm.
    And the 3,14-derivative America was brought in vain for an example!
    You just need to answer a couple of simple questions: Who will shoot first? Who and when will take revenge on the killer?
    kartalovkolya - buy a saiga. Or is there a problem with the permit system?
  35. Yarosvet
    Yarosvet 31 October 2013 19: 54
    +3
    Can an ordinary PPP employee fly off the coils? Quite.
    Good at guns? Unlikely.
    Psychologically prepared? Unlikely.
    Can undergo an unexpected attack and not have time to use weapons? Easy.

    That is, ordinary PPSnik is not much different from an ordinary citizen.

    Then why is the PPSnik armed and the citizen not?
  36. Bosk
    Bosk 1 November 2013 01: 03
    +3
    Everything is very simple here, the state took responsibility for the safety of its citizens and it follows that the population does not need weapons because it is under reliable protection ... but the cant is that the state cannot provide full protection for its citizens ... that means logically citizens must be given the opportunity to defend themselves too ... And all this talk about the fact that the population will shoot each other for a moment, or about the lack of a gun ownership culture is demagogy ... because drunk driving is sometimes worse than a machine gun ... but anyway but they go and by the way, according to statistics, every year less and less.
  37. corn
    corn 1 November 2013 02: 13
    +3
    Quote: Begemot
    Comparing us with the same Americans is incorrect, they have reduced the number of scumbags at the genetic level over 200 years


    That is, we have more scumbags at the genetic level.

    Quote: Alexej
    but with extra responsibility and smut-rewards.

    My pain in the neck and my responsibility is not related to a ban or permission to weapons. I myself can determine whether I want or do not want to have pains and responsibility.

    And as regards culture: firstly, I don’t feel myself uncultured, secondly, there is no weapon - there is no culture, and thirdly, I have already heard somewhere: there is no culture .... drinking alcohol ... and the destruction started vineyards.
  38. 2c5
    2c5 1 November 2013 09: 01
    0
    the argument is about nothing, no one will give a short-barrel. and why exactly a short-barrel? I think the first thing is to revoke the license for knives. Is this nonsense some kind of kitchen cleaver, too, can be killed, but how is it different from a hunting one? Or with swords like Macloud duncans Will they start to walk around the city? The same applies to the pneumatics Russian murks go up to 7,5 joules, they drive ostensibly weakened screws with a hole in the piston from behind the hill. Although you can buy a normal piston in the store, and you will have a powerful rifle and hardly anyone will climb you have to check it. this clearly slows down our manufacturers where both quality and price are better. as for self-defense, for a start they would allow a smooth-bore, I doubt that someone will walk along the street with a saiga or a slacker, there’s something in the apartment or in the house and then you’ll have the option of either having five years old, you can buy diced for another five years short barrel. agree to have a short barrel at the age of 18 and at the age of 30-35 it’s not the same
    1. understudy
      understudy 1 November 2013 11: 27
      0
      Quote: 2c5
      to start would have allowed a smoothbore

      And who is forbidding now?
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 1 November 2013 11: 33
        0
        Quote: Understudy
        And who is forbidding now?
        The prices for this pleasure are frankly prohibitive. In the Russian Federation, I don’t know, but Ukrainian hunters from the annual mandatory requisitions simply howl in their voices ... Whoever is a fan, they still pay, where to go, and most of the rest can’t just spend such expenses sad
        1. understudy
          understudy 1 November 2013 11: 37
          0
          It’s easier with us, if you only have it, you keep it, but you don’t go hunting.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  39. ekzorsist
    ekzorsist 3 November 2013 22: 56
    +1
    ... A lot of people, a lot of opinions, but still the very law on necessary defense is complete nonsense!
    It is not possible to confront one, and even more so several attackers (not always expected) without causing them the slightest harm! And in the end, the attacker himself did not ask the attackers to injure him or injure him ... but for some reason no one considers the situation ... Many people advocate the death penalty, but what is the bad situation when self-defense will be destroyed that criminal element, which has long been trying to put in the dock, then to execute?
    In any case, the offender is in a winning position — he plans ahead (in most cases) and prepares the crime, and he doesn’t have any problems with weapons. But if the potential victim has at least not a big chance to repulse the attacker - that's good! And the talk that there is no culture or something else ... - again, nonsense, I doubt very much doubt that a person with an officially registered barrel rushed to shoot left and right, well, unless of course he is insane.
    But just the lack of a law on weapons and normal self-defense, just gives rise to all this lawlessness.