Military Review

Pistol economy: how profitable is legalization of weapons?

175
Pistol economy: how profitable is legalization of weapons?Both the state and citizens can benefit from the arming of the people


Today there are few those who are able to quickly and reliably split society into opposing camps who argue foaming at the mouth, often not finding points of convergence. This is not only the famous triad "Stalin, gays and Jews", but also legalization weapons. Let us set aside its moral and legal aspects and dwell on the economic ones. We are waiting for some interesting discoveries.

20 will be celebrated in December with the first Russian law on weapons. Three years later, the document that approved our right to arm was revised. We got the right to traumatic pistols, hunting rifles and even rifles, with which at least go to war, but lost weapons, perhaps the most interesting thing for any shooter, - “rifled short-barreled firearms”. Simply - pistols and revolvers, which in Russia, in fact, argue themselves hoarse. A year ago, Senator Alexander Torshin came up with a sensational initiative to resolve the shortbridge, motivating this primarily with economic considerations. According to the calculations that he cited, the personal firearms market in five years would have reached the volume of 1,5 trillion rubles.

The amount is impressive, but not marginal. It seems that it can be significantly increased. It is amazing how our state, with its ability to regulate any idea to the point of absurdity and withdraw money from citizens at every step, did not seize upon such a promising and relatively safe initiative as the legalization of short-barreled weapons. It could even monopolize this market, and, paradoxically, society could also benefit.

Anyone who wants to get a weapon, anyway, they will get and will not spare the money, effort and time. On such and need to earn. About 60 000 people a year buy traumatic weapons in Russia. They are arming despite the fact that the uselessness of the "rezinrefs" has become the talk of the town. It seems that these weapons were deliberately allowed to discredit the idea of ​​arming the people: for self-defense traumatic pistols are almost unsuitable, and for tavern fights and shooting point-blank unarmed people - that’s necessary. With an average price of “trauma” in 7500 rubles, we get the market with an annual capacity of 450 million rubles.

Real pistols can cost ten times more, especially if the state imposes a substantial tax on them or monopolizes the sale altogether: this is unlikely to be strongly affected by demand. According to a number of forecasts, the pistol-revolving market may grow by 11% per year. Director of the Institute for the Problems of Globalization, Mikhail Delyagin, asserted that five years after the resolution of the short-barred line, 20% of Russian men and 5% of women would arm them. They will need a lot of ammunition (training, gun shooting, maintenance of shooting skills), the monopolistic producer and exporter of which the state can easily become.

However, we treat one thing - the other is crippled. Having just emerged, the short-barred market will not only nullify the trade in traumatic and gas weapons, but also undermine the business of selling hunting weapons. It is believed that 70% "hunters" hardly ever spent the night in the woods, because they bought weapons for self-defense. Hunting weapons in Russia produce five factories, which, in order to compensate for the losses, will only be profitable to switch to the production of pistols, revolvers and their ammunition. So much for the support of the defense industry, about which we love to talk so much.

Another source of profit could be licensing - tough, expensive and, possibly, also monopolized by the state. A strict system of checks, examinations and issuing permits should simultaneously replenish the treasury and exclude any contact with psychopathic weapons like Major Yevsyukov (who went to the police, despite his mental disorder) and Vinogradov's pharmacy shooter. Recall the experience of the UK, where there is one of the toughest licensing systems: the Briton has to prove that he has no mental problems, is clean before the law and needs a gun (self-defense, by the way, is not considered a valid reason, unlike skeet shooting). The license is issued for five years, after which it is necessary to prove everything in a new way, and each time you lay out 50 pounds just for the “crust”. In the United States, documents for weapons, depending on the state, can cost from 5 to 900 dollars, and all licensing procedures in some places cost in 1000 dollars. It means that the Russian budget even at not the most cannibalistic prices can be replenished by hundreds of millions of rubles annually.

Still, experts offer shooters civil liability insurance - they have already called him “pistol OSAGO”. The proceeds can be used to compensate for damage from weapons-based emergency situations and to equip, for example, the pulley silo systems, which in which case it will be possible to determine in a few minutes who fired from what.

State revenues from the sale of pistols and revolvers can grow due to any restrictions. For example, a weapon can be made “disposable” by prohibiting its resale and allowing citizens to buy only new “trunks”. Take and improve the system adopted, for example, in Mexico. Is the gun tired or hopelessly outdated? Hand it over to the police, where they will destroy it right in front of you, pay the fee, and only then get a new one. The total absence of the "secondary housing" will become an obstacle to the black market, although it will not completely destroy it. He will survive at the expense of criminals, who always have a weapon, and those who do not shine a legitimate purchase of the "trunk". Now, by the way, there are no insoluble problems with the purchase of illegal weapons. Makarov's pistol, long gone out of fashion in the world of crime, can be taken for 100-300 dollars, depending on its state and stories. AK-47? Two hundred bucks, and he is yours. For such trade there are special sites, although it is often engaged in the police and the FSB in order to keep the naive buyer behind bars.

In short, the Russian government is full of opportunities to create a full-fledged, tightly regulated domestic arms market and to receive from this a substantial benefit. There would be a desire! But there is no desire: the Kremlin believes that the population of Russia is “not ready” for the legalization of the short-barrels and the weapons culture is completely devoid of. When it is “ready” and where will this culture come from, if the authorities have always kept people away from effective self-defense weapons, they are not explaining to us. You can check our readiness only by allowing pistols and revolvers, for a start, with any kind of strict restrictions, if we don’t trust ourselves. True, then in the Kremlin they risk losing the monopoly on violence and see on the other side of the red-brick walls armed and therefore much freer and independent people. Americans do not speak for nothing: if the government starts talking about gun control, he is not interested in guns, but in control ...
Author:
Originator:
http://www.km.ru/
175 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Wedmak
    Wedmak 7 November 2013 16: 09 New
    17
    Plusan. I am for the legalization of weapons. With severe restrictions, licenses, etc. You look, bandits, boors and cattle (often already armed) will be reduced in all parts of the country.
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 7 November 2013 16: 15 New
      +9
      I support, but I will not begin to write anything more fundamentally.
    2. a52333
      a52333 7 November 2013 16: 18 New
      17
      Quote: Wedmak
      You see, the bandits, boors and cattle will decrease
      Cool! You can minus it! Bach - and no boor. Bach - there you go.
      Something I do not share your idea.
      1. DuraLexSedLex.
        DuraLexSedLex. 7 November 2013 16: 30 New
        +9
        This kind of contingent, let's call this process "self-cleaning" self-cleaning in the first six months of the existence of the law) But I think the author of the post had in mind, a very rude and non-cultural stratum of the population, with traumatics, which, on remarks towards their behavior (often boorish and uncultured, and on the road also endangering the lives of others), they get the very same traumatics in view of the poor mind and phimosis of the brain, since they do not admit their mistakes because it is "not like a kid."
        In defense of the author and my lines, I’ll say that my friend tempered the ardor of such an individual with a gun, because he didn’t know that he had a trauma, he would ride alone, would never have thought of getting it in his life, but it was not scary for himself, but for family (((
      2. Wedmak
        Wedmak 7 November 2013 16: 36 New
        +5
        Bach - and no boor. Bach - here's to you. Something I don’t share your idea.

        An adequate person will not plow right and left. This is already criminally punishable. But in the event of an attack, the person who owns the gun will REALLY stop the attacker. Unlike traumatism. I do not consider pneumatic as a defense weapon.
        A 9mm bullet in the leg or arm will cool the ardor of anyone. And the potential criminal will know this.
        1. IRBIS
          IRBIS 7 November 2013 17: 07 New
          19
          Quote: Wedmak
          9mm a bullet in the leg or arm will cool the ardor of anyone.

          Personally, have you tried to get into the arm or leg of a moving person about five meters away? It is only in the movies that the bandit gets a well-aimed bullet in his hand and throws a weapon. In reality, 99% will shoot at the body, which is extremely fast and with enviable constancy turns into a cooling corpse.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 7 November 2013 17: 17 New
            +8
            From pneumatics on a vskidka shot. With sufficient practice, from 5 meters, it is quite possible. In reality, yes, they will aim at the figure.
            Only now when it comes to this, any person who knows how to defend himself will not stand on ceremony. Since here we are talking about life. And now the stupid law on exceeding the necessary defense is hindering adequate protection. And the exact wording does not give a severe punishment. Afraid to kill inadvertently. Which leads to sad consequences.
            I don’t understand at all how it is possible to determine the necessary measure of defense in a stressful situation? Let's say a specially trained person can do this - special forces, airborne forces, hand-to-hand fighters, etc., they were "trained" for this. What about an ordinary person ?? Will ask the attacker what is he going to use? Well, nonsense.
            1. IRBIS
              IRBIS 7 November 2013 17: 31 New
              +8
              Quote: Wedmak
              What about an ordinary person ?? Will ask the attacker what he is going to apply?

              Right! And they will shoot at an unarmed man who decided to simply clean up a penny for a boor who has a barrel with him. Under the cover of "self-defense", because he is "thin" and cannot fight by definition.
              Quote: Wedmak
              And now the stupid law on exceeding the necessary defense is preventing adequate protection.

              You hit me with your fist, and I took the drin and hit you on the skull. And what is "stupid" in the law on permissible self-defense, which interprets my actions as exceeding it?
              Each person evaluates the threat in his own way, but this does not mean that it is his subjective critical assessment of the situation that automatically gives him the right of the Lord to allow the other to live.
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 7 November 2013 17: 50 New
                +2
                And they will shoot at the unarmed, who decided simply to clean the dime of the boor, who has a barrel with him.

                The issue is controversial. And now, in your opinion, the boor does not have the same injuries and will not shoot? It will also provoke! For the trauma is "not fatal", but with a combat one will already think about it.
                You hit me with your fist, and I took drin and hit you on the skull.

                And if I threatened you before banging my fist? And not only to you, but also to your family? This is already changing the alignment. You will knock again and not twice, if I do not calm down. It is so? Or you just take out the barrel and calmly say "climb, get a bullet." The latter will cool the ardor much faster than the drin.
                Each person evaluates the threat in his own way, but this does not mean that it is his subjective critical assessment of the situation that automatically gives him the right of the Lord to allow the other to live.

                I agree. But an adequate person will not take out a gun with a slight threat. When, instead, you can hit drina. The gun will go into action when life or health is in immediate danger.
                1. Alexei
                  Alexei 7 November 2013 18: 31 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  The gun will go into action when life or health is in immediate danger.

                  Of course, in adequate people, life is full of events when his life and health (and especially the life and health of his family) are in serious danger.
              2. Vidok
                Vidok 8 November 2013 13: 42 New
                0
                In states where laws on the use of firearms have been around for a long time, they are severely punished for shooting unarmed, even if this unarmed can strangle you with one hand. And even the policemen, having not found weapons in the criminal for whom they used their weapons, are very worried about this
            2. Same lech
              Same lech 7 November 2013 17: 43 New
              +7
              Wedmak totally agree with you.
              I would add that the law is very benevolent to the attacker - I think the very fact of the attack already gives the person the right to defend themselves without thinking about the life and health of the attacker.
              Not long ago I watched a video from PETERSBURG.
              Two stubborn drunks caught up with a guy demanding money and the guy didn’t have a cell phone without hesitation, they stabbed him several times with a knife in the stomach of the poor fellow.
              So I think that in this situation it is necessary to go for a clear violation of the law in order to stay alive which of the scumbags will have to be sent to the other world.
              And such cases are full in our cities and villages.
          2. Geisenberg
            Geisenberg 8 November 2013 05: 01 New
            +3
            Quote: IRBIS
            Quote: Wedmak
            9mm a bullet in the leg or arm will cool the ardor of anyone.

            Personally, have you tried to get into the arm or leg of a moving person about five meters away? It is only in the movies that the bandit gets a well-aimed bullet in his hand and throws a weapon. In reality, 99% will shoot at the body, which is extremely fast and with enviable constancy turns into a cooling corpse.


            I tried. It turns out fine ... everything as the author says.

            Nenad here is spreading thought on the tree. The point is that people are helpless in front of armed bandits and the state, prohibiting the short-barrels incites bandits to use weapons.
          3. gmajor
            gmajor 8 November 2013 07: 45 New
            -1
            So for this you need to train. Draw an analogy with a car. Then your question can be put like this: Have you tried to drive through the city center at rush hour?
        2. Alexei
          Alexei 7 November 2013 18: 24 New
          +3
          Quote: Wedmak
          9mm a bullet in the leg or arm will cool the ardor of anyone.

          Or piss him off even more. I will not write anything more on this topic. A BABA YAGA AGAINST.
          1. Same lech
            Same lech 7 November 2013 18: 30 New
            +5
            I wonder how a bullet in a leg can make a person angry — I naively thought that he would call a doctor.
            Well, you can add a second bullet to the bandit, then he will think about saving his precious life.
            Life is such a thing - that even the most notorious gangster wants to live, and this is evident when you put the barrel of a gun on your forehead.
            1. Alexei
              Alexei 7 November 2013 18: 35 New
              -2
              Quote: The same LYOKHA
              I wonder how a bullet in a leg can make a person angry — I naively thought that he would call a doctor.

              Easy can. You are really naive. The scissor then heals, but the sediment remains. Not only a bullet in a person’s head, or in vital organs, will not piss off a person.
              1. Same lech
                Same lech 7 November 2013 19: 23 New
                +3
                Well, the sediment will remain in any case - even a bullet, a knife or a simple kick in the balls - this is already from the field of human psychology.
                I mean a fleeting situation when the question arises of life and death and neither the police nor the casual passer-by nor your fast legs can help you.
              2. Wedmak
                Wedmak 8 November 2013 07: 26 New
                +2
                Easy? Something I strongly doubt that with a bullet in your leg you can rise. Even sooooo angry. This is not a movie for you ...
              3. Geisenberg
                Geisenberg 9 November 2013 16: 46 New
                0
                Quote: Alexej
                Quote: The same LYOKHA
                I wonder how a bullet in a leg can make a person angry — I naively thought that he would call a doctor.

                Easy can. You are really naive. The scissor then heals, but the sediment remains. Not only a bullet in a person’s head, or in vital organs, will not piss off a person.


                So it’s easy to arrange. The protocol will clearly state who the bullet hit. Find and finish - but no problem.
          2. wasjasibirjac
            wasjasibirjac 7 November 2013 20: 11 New
            +6
            Quote: Alexej
            Or piss him off even more. I will not write anything more on this topic. A BABA YAGA AGAINST.

            piss off? possibly. but the bullet is likely to deprive the given individual of the opportunity to continue his actions. it’s only in the cinema, having received a field from 5 m. the hero or the villain keep jumping for another half hour. in practice - lie down and start yelling. the dog barks - the caravan goes on.
            1. Alexei
              Alexei 7 November 2013 20: 13 New
              0
              Quote: wasjasibirjac
              piss off? perhaps. but the bullet is likely to deprive the individual of the opportunity to continue their actions

              Read my comment below, and then we'll talk. hi
          3. Geisenberg
            Geisenberg 9 November 2013 16: 45 New
            0
            Quote: Alexej
            Quote: Wedmak
            9mm a bullet in the leg or arm will cool the ardor of anyone.

            Or piss him off even more. I will not write anything more on this topic. A BABA YAGA AGAINST.


            That's right, don’t write any more - nobody is interested in nonsense.
        3. a52333
          a52333 7 November 2013 21: 35 New
          +2
          Quote: Wedmak
          An adequate person will not plow right and left.

          AHA, that's just inadequate or a drug addict (who took the short-barrel from dad "for a while") will be.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 8 November 2013 07: 28 New
            +2
            AHA, that's just inadequate or a drug addict (who took the short-barrel from dad "for a while") will be.

            And then he will go either to prison or to the other world. From other people having the same trunks. And he will not shoot unarmed citizens as in a dash.
            1. arutun
              arutun 8 November 2013 12: 06 New
              0
              Listen, even well-armed and trained policemen are being killed now, they don’t always have time to respond to the attack, and do you want a passerby to start a shootout with a criminal? I think most people just run away if possible, or do not have time to react. Yes, and without good preparation, you can kill several more passers-by instead of a criminal.

              On the other hand, the offender will act harshly and not give a single chance to the victim, knowing that he is possibly armed.
              Also, in a couple of years we will get "twitchy" policemen who will shoot to kill children who run around in the yard with a toy machine gun, like in the USA.

              This is really a difficult question to resolve or not rifled weapons, and the economic issue in this should be in the very last place.
        4. tomket
          tomket 8 November 2013 00: 41 New
          +2
          and we have all the adequate? or are they adequate all the time? For example, how to say Yevsyukov he was inadequate all his life? Or was life adequate, but at some point he just went nuts? To hope for adequacy is like the will of God.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 8 November 2013 07: 29 New
            +2
            If someone had a gun in that store, would Yevsyukov shoot for a long time? Most likely, he would immediately have fallen from the bullet of a cashier or another buyer.
        5. Xroft
          Xroft 8 November 2013 01: 57 New
          +2
          In our country with our laws? An adequate person will be sent to prison if he even uses weapons at home against the robbers, they say they are not humane or there were other alternative methods of struggle. We need the rule of law to use weapons, but we never will.
        6. Orel
          Orel 8 November 2013 06: 48 New
          0
          But in the event of an attack, the person who owns the gun will REALLY stop the attacker.


          Unless you suddenly get a gun in your face and your weapon is under your jacket, belt or purse (in case of an attack on a woman). Have time to get a weapon? Would you risk it? Now, in order to rob you need to have a little bit of physical strength, or a company of several assistants. And with a gun, everyone can do it alone, and from a respectful distance. Robbing with a knife is not easy, you have to get close, and with a gun it is much easier. It’ll only become more dangerous on the streets ...
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 8 November 2013 07: 31 New
            +1
            And with a gun, everyone can do it alone, and from a respectful distance. Robbing with a knife is not easy, you have to get close, and with a gun it is much easier. It’ll only become more dangerous on the streets ...

            You did not think that the burglar himself risks getting a bullet at any time. And if nothing stops him now, then with the permission of the weapon he will think about it ... but will he manage to use his own?
            1. arutun
              arutun 8 November 2013 12: 09 New
              0
              He (the criminal) will have time in time, if they point a weapon at you and rob you, what will you start to get your gun from? Yes, they’ll shoot a couple of times while you get out and run away.
      3. bask
        bask 7 November 2013 16: 56 New
        10
        Quote: a52333
        Something I do not share your idea.

        All bandits and terrorists have rifled weapons.
        And not only short-barrel.
        Allow sale and acquisition of pistols.
        The authorities do not protect us, to give an opportunity, to defend ourselves.
        And pull the trigger, everyone decides for himself.

        All Caucasians have weapons.
        TIME TO GIVE IT AND RUSSIAN !!!!!
        1. Dilshat
          Dilshat 7 November 2013 19: 22 New
          +4
          Would you like to know if you live in a colony? Read the law on permitting possession of weapons by the population.
          1. Tretyakov
            Tretyakov 8 November 2013 20: 25 New
            0
            Well, in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, we have rifles allowed, but if you're a hunt. No means no! Those. I, quite adequately, cannot have a weapon, but can a native come by birth? Answer who is against the law !!!!
        2. Tyumen
          Tyumen 7 November 2013 22: 18 New
          +2
          bask
          Well, the photo is stupid, juvenile, narcissistic beast, flaunting each other.
      4. skeptic
        skeptic 7 November 2013 17: 23 New
        17
        Quote: a52333
        Cool! You can minus it! Bach - and no boor. Bach - there you go.
        Something I do not share your idea.


        I agree, you can not share ... sitting on the couch, in front of the computer.

        Literally, the other day, I'm going with my wife and daughter. Speed ​​within 90, rightmost lane. Suddenly, an SUV bypassing on the left, cuts right in front of the nose with hard braking, switches to the sidelines, literally in seconds, this maneuver is repeated by the second. Well reaction and brakes did not fail - he turned out. But what would I be able to oppose to these "boys"? They do not suffer from the absence of trunks. Who can guarantee that this meeting would be without problems for my girls.

        Yes. There would have been more cases of shooting in the initial period. In the end, the most reckless were shot, but after this order there would be more. To run into a lead bullet, those wishing to sharply decrease, because the presence of weapons on the face is not written.

        In the meantime, those in power are afraid that they, as the most snickering officials, may actually be shot. The main reason for this. request
        1. Alexei
          Alexei 7 November 2013 18: 48 New
          0
          Literally not so long ago, the guys shot a gangster's leg. Then one of these guys was brutally beaten and put on the counter (he personally determined the route for him by telephone, with the replacement of cars, so that he left the area). The second of the guys left the area immediately. And they live now in a foreign land in fear that they will be found. You with your trunks yourself give the bandits a reason to cash in. I see the only plus in legalization: urbanization of cities will slow down.
      5. Nuar
        Nuar 7 November 2013 21: 08 New
        +1
        Quote: Wedmak
        An adequate person will not plow right and left. This is already criminally punishable.

        Ha. with an injury - also a criminal offense and plop how much in vain.

        Quote: a52333
        Something I do not share your idea.

        at least someone sane on the site.

        to listen to the author so it is necessary to legalize child prostitution. Triple profit:
        1. State profits (licensing whores + VAT on buyers)
        2. Pedophiles happiness
        3. Well, the kids are busy, maybe they will not indulge with drugs.

        Although the drug also needs to be legalized. But only sell through monopoly through a network of state pharmacies.
        1. V. Salama
          V. Salama 8 November 2013 14: 05 New
          +2
          Quote: Nuar
          ... it’s necessary to listen to the author and legalize child prostitution.
          You can’t weapons, your logic is wrong. You decide on the starting point - is that a weapon for you, an inadequate tool for doing evil deeds?
      6. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 8 November 2013 04: 56 New
        +1
        Quote: a52333
        Quote: Wedmak
        You see, the bandits, boors and cattle will decrease
        Cool! You can minus it! Bach - and no boor. Bach - there you go.
        Something I do not share your idea.


        The value of my life in no way can be connected with what you share or do not share.

        Any person should have the right to protect himself by all existing means.
      7. Very old
        Very old 8 November 2013 07: 07 New
        +3
        Easily "Bang" can be a bandit, boor, scumbag
        It would be enough for me to indicate: not Hami! the answer will be tough!
        But they forbid me to do this.
        Bandit, boor, scumbag - this category of "citizens" does not care about prohibitive slingshots on anti-pistol legislation, they will always find the trunks.
        Imagine the situation- Hey, Vova, go to the gun shop, buy a couple of trunks, tomorrow let's go get the jewelry
        Nonsense. Vovan will not "shine", Vovan knows secret canals and rivers full of such good
        That's why I'm for
    3. vlad0
      vlad0 7 November 2013 16: 45 New
      +6
      But at the same time, a complete ban on traumatics and pneumatics is necessary. It is they who become the root cause of a significant underestimation of the threshold for the use of weapons (it seems like it is still not fatal), and create an atmosphere of "weaponlessness" in the country.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 7 November 2013 16: 50 New
        +4
        But at the same time, a complete ban on injuries and pneumatics is necessary.

        Injuries yes, but I don’t agree about pneumatics. At least it gives an initial idea of ​​weapons (not everyone will acquire a combat barrel), and can be used for entertainment purposes.
      2. Genry
        Genry 7 November 2013 20: 27 New
        +1
        Quote: vlad0
        But at the same time, a complete ban on injuries and pneumatics is necessary.

        Injuries and pneumatics will be regarded as military weapons. Maybe it will stop someone, or vice versa it will provoke retaliatory fire to defeat. Fools will quickly grow wiser or ....
        There is no need to forbid, the owners need for safe training.
    4. Megatron
      Megatron 7 November 2013 16: 47 New
      +4
      Very profitable! Arms manufacturers and undertakers! As they say, we support soul and body, a domestic manufacturer!
      1. IRBIS
        IRBIS 7 November 2013 17: 11 New
        +1
        Quote: Megatron
        and undertakers!

        I agree with you! Here ritual agencies scald!
        And this pinned me: "The proceeds can go for compensation for damage from weapons-related emergency ..."Specifically for this topic - for the funeral, as I understand it?
    5. Alez
      Alez 7 November 2013 16: 47 New
      +8
      Most of the killings occur on household grounds, kill with kitchen knives. There will be new statistics on domestic murder from pistols, accidents with inept use of weapons, among children. Who will be able to properly store the gun in a cozy one-room apartment with kids. When I open my hunting safe, I have to drive off my boys, curiosity, etc. If there hadn’t been a safe with a combination lock, we would have gotten long ago. To resolve the firearm you need to tighten legislation:
      - strict licensing.
      - increased criminal liability for careless treatment resulting in harm or death.
      - increased criminal liability for the use of weapons for criminal purposes.
      - criminal liability for improper storage, maintenance and loss.

      And then I feel we’ll lose part of the population in the shootings.
      1. Dilshat
        Dilshat 7 November 2013 19: 38 New
        0
        I will add - long testing and personal criminal liability for a certificate issued to a "psycho" by a doctor.
      2. Lesnik
        Lesnik 7 November 2013 19: 39 New
        +1
        Quote: Alez
        Most of the killings occur on household grounds, kill with kitchen knives. There will be new statistics of domestic killings from pistols,


        Let's ban fellow cars winked because it dies in a traffic accident 3 times more than from a household

        Quote: Alez
        And then I feel we’ll lose part of the population in the shootings.


        You rank officials and bandits (which are the same thing) to the "population" laughing
        1. alone
          alone 7 November 2013 20: 07 New
          0
          Well, let's start to sell weapons to the population. I think that many will take the opportunity to use it in the slightest conflict.
          1. Lesnik
            Lesnik 7 November 2013 20: 14 New
            +1
            With all due respect to you, but let me disagree.
            I’ll give an example, many have a car (which by the way is a means of increased danger), so I didn’t see people pressuring the offender with an oblique look
      3. Genry
        Genry 7 November 2013 20: 36 New
        +1
        Quote: Alez
        murder with pistols, accidents with inept use of weapons, among children.

        There are special (trigger) locks on weapons.
        If a child knows how to use a grinder, then a safe will not help.
      4. Krasnoarmeec
        Krasnoarmeec 8 November 2013 09: 55 New
        +1
        Just the other day, I also made a polemic with my elder brother (I am 32, he is 36) over legalization, and so he insists that if legalized, it is only in strict legal norms and with the issuance of a license for hands only from the age of 30 . I agree with strict standards one hundred percent, but excuse me, what are 30 years old? That is, at 18 I’ll join the army, defend my country, and I’m ready to die, but I’m still a snot to get a barrel for my defense at 20?!?!
        Well, in general, we did not come to a common denominator (we almost scolded laughing ) but in general, of course, that weapon which does not exist does not fire, but nevertheless I am for legalization.
    6. major071
      major071 7 November 2013 21: 10 New
      +5
      I will support you. For 17 years he walked with the PM in a holster, five of which were in free wear. And not once, except in emergency situations of using weapons, I did not get it. Tight restrictions, full verification when issuing licenses.
    7. bif
      bif 7 November 2013 22: 04 New
      +1
      somehow
      Quote: Wedmak
      I am for the legalization of weapons. With severe restrictions, licenses, etc.

      Criminals will find weapons anyway, legalists are useless (arrive late, the killer will pay off, etc.), and adequate self-defense remains.
    8. tomket
      tomket 8 November 2013 00: 37 New
      +2
      the experience of wearing traumas by the population clearly shows that it will be extremely rare to use firearms as self-defense, but as a means of attack, for example, in traffic jams or in nightclubs, but for a sweet deed. Well, plus to this case, add shootings in cinemas and shopping centers, and do not forget about schools. And to argue that our people are more tolerant than in the states, and there they are completely scumbags, and therefore they shoot at each other, this will certainly be wrong.
      1. Orel
        Orel 8 November 2013 06: 36 New
        0
        Economics is, of course, economy, but everything that the author wrote is impracticable. For what you write, you need to again hire an army of officials and create a special ministry. Do we have few officials? Your budget revenues for the most part will go to the maintenance of this new army. What you say about the high cost of weapons is generally absurd. The essence of the legalization of weapons in its accessibility to every ordinary person for their protection. If the weapon is expensive, only the elite will have it. Will this add security to you? Therefore, if the arms market grows, then the price of it will fall, which means that weapons will be available more and more. And we will come to the fact that in universities, at stops, streets and schools they will shoot our loved ones. I am opposed, I believe that there will be little efficiency, many cite death statistics in the USA and here, but it is useless, since in the USA most of the deaths are firearms, and here we have a minority. If you still legalize weapons, do you think there will be less domestic killings without weapons? Not. Just 70–80% of gunshot deaths will be added to these killings ...
        1. Krasnoarmeec
          Krasnoarmeec 8 November 2013 10: 15 New
          0
          By the way, I did not hear in the news that in America, some kind of maddened psycho who started randomly shooting everyone was killed by random passers-by from his licensed trunk, and I think they have every second one. request
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 8 November 2013 10: 24 New
            0
            Quote: Krasnoarmeec
            some kind of maddened psycho who started randomly shooting everyone

            By a "strange coincidence" ALL these "enraged psychos" choose for their shooting exactly the places in which law-abiding citizens are PROHIBITED to appear with weapons. That's interesting, right? Which, by the way, is a serious question about their "insanity" ... what
            Quote: Krasnoarmeec
            By the way, I did not hear in the news
            And do not hear, SUCH in the news just will not be. But even on YouTube there are a lot of videos on the topic of armed rebuff to robbers. And according to statistics in the United States, ordinary citizens fight back to criminals more often than specially trained police and other security services
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 8 November 2013 18: 40 New
        0
        Quote: tomket
        the experience of wearing traumas by the population clearly shows that it will be extremely rare to use firearms as self-defense, but as a means of attack, for example, in traffic jams or in nightclubs, but for a sweet deed.
        It's time for you to write your dissertation. Something like "Influence of children's games with toy cars on the road situation in the country" wassat
        Traumatism is an unusually useless acquisition, necessary only to amuse your arrogance. It is EXTREMELY difficult to use it as intended (due to design features) even to a strong pro
      3. bif
        bif 8 November 2013 18: 57 New
        +1
        Quote: tomket
        the experience of wearing traumas by the population clearly shows that it will be extremely rare to use firearms as self-defense, but as a means of attack, for example, in traffic jams or in nightclubs, but for a sweet deed. Well, plus to this case, add shootings in cinemas and shopping centers, and do not forget about schools. And to argue that our people are more tolerant than in the states, and there they are completely scumbags, and therefore they shoot at each other, this will certainly be wrong.

        All of the above will just be prevented by the opportunity to get a "headshot", but the fact that at first there will be literally the shooting of the most greyhounds and "hottest" so it's okay everyone goes through this ... but the rest will be more tolerant and respectful of others
  2. DuraLexSedLex.
    DuraLexSedLex. 7 November 2013 16: 17 New
    +9
    The topic has been raised more than once, and here and on other resources, and petitions and signatures were collected) And the point is like a donut hole (((
    I am for legalization, but only if this stupid concept is canceled "LIMITS OF ACCEPTABLE SELF-DEFENSE". Nope, they all jail us, because you see the poor urk with a knife, they killed when they broke into the house, or cut other people on the street.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 7 November 2013 16: 38 New
      +7
      only with the abolition of this stupid concept of "THE LIMIT OF PERMISSIBLE SELF-DEFENSE".

      By the way, yes. The concept "my home is my fortress" should be introduced. And the ability to protect the house by any adequate means.
      1. DuraLexSedLex.
        DuraLexSedLex. 7 November 2013 16: 46 New
        +4
        This is a house, but now there is progress in this regard, but on the street, after all, the same crimes occur and it is on the street that most of them are committed. delirium, as "ultimate self-defense" to be should not.
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. yan
    yan 7 November 2013 16: 23 New
    +6
    the short barrel should be allowed, albeit with restrictions (for example, with compulsory military service, possession of traumatic and gas, hunting for at least 5 years, etc.), but it must be allowed.
  5. demel2
    demel2 7 November 2013 16: 25 New
    +6
    I think with this power, the short-wave will not be allowed. For them, a nightmare to know that we have weapons
    1. DuraLexSedLex.
      DuraLexSedLex. 7 November 2013 17: 00 New
      +4
      I have a weapon at home, but no one is afraid of it, and a .308 bullet pierces a bulletproof vest))
  6. Altona
    Altona 7 November 2013 16: 36 New
    +5
    Korotkostvol can be allowed if the legislation on its use is very clearly defined ... Also create a system of initial shooting training, shooting ranges for amateurs ... Issue a license in the form of a driver’s license, shooting skills, plus knowledge of the basics of the legislation on self-defense, well, the psychiatrist-narcologist herself by itself ... And as for Makarov’s pistol, it’s in vain ... I bought pneumatic for shooting balls, Makarov most conveniently lies in his hand ...
  7. Timeout
    Timeout 7 November 2013 16: 37 New
    +8
    Living for a long time abroad just used to carry weapons, work obliges. Coming home I feel naked. In Russia, they came up with a bunch of federal laws to make people defenseless against a possible danger. Take the same law on the protection of animals, any mocking mongrel can bite your child, due to the fact that you kick it you can safely sit up to 5 years. About the wearing of weapons and self-defense against bipedal banderlogs I generally keep quiet.
  8. erased
    erased 7 November 2013 16: 49 New
    +1
    The author plus, the article - two pluses (sorry, will not work).
    I completely agree - the authorities do not give a damn about the people, even if they cut the whole, if only it was a herd, not an individual. Therefore, a profitable business is not allowed. Well what can I say - this is Russia! Even the eternal - we wait, we hope - I do not want to write ...
  9. The comment was deleted.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 7 November 2013 17: 19 New
      +2
      Most likely, the result from the warning would be different, they would simply have run away ... It's like jackals, they beat when they have a numerical advantage. As soon as a white fox appeared on the horizon - in loose.
  10. Ljubomir
    Ljubomir 7 November 2013 16: 52 New
    +3
    Today, at 13-05 I heard help. He looked - three young men (as far as I saw, the vision was not right) knocked down one bald man and beat him. On the same side of the street there were three under-peasants and several. women. Passers-by simply walked looking and did not stop (While I watched for 30 seconds). While I got dressed (hat, jacket, boots) and went down I ran around the house (no more than 2 minutes) no one (I think they got around and ran away, and the victim was afraid of them) So, in my hands I held the keys and a gas canister, which I ALWAYS helped out if I used it. And now we can just imagine if the victim and / or I have a battle. There is very little chance that he will warn me of mine. they would have fled, which means three with bullet wounds to the limbs or I with several. As a result, I either have a criminal record, or a loss of health.
    1. ReifA
      ReifA 7 November 2013 17: 14 New
      +4
      It’s better to imagine that no one fells and doesn’t hit at the beaten trunk and, therefore, with this.
      1. Ljubomir
        Ljubomir 7 November 2013 17: 41 New
        0
        It’s better to imagine that no one fells and doesn’t hit at the beaten trunk and, therefore, with this.

        When I saw: they had already grabbed him (were still running), one by the collar, the other by his right hand and hit him in the face; third from behind. Immediately knocked down (I thought the opera was delayed, that's why I looked, but when they started kicking and jumping on my head, I realized that the bandits). Do you think you need a halo over your head with the words "owner of firearms"?
      2. IRBIS
        IRBIS 7 November 2013 17: 42 New
        +1
        Quote: ReifA
        Imagine that no one fells and doesn’t hit the trunk of a broken one and make it possible.

        Imagine a different picture. They attacked unexpectedly, took the barrel and, at best, stuck it in his ass. At worst, they shot and carried the barrel with them.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 7 November 2013 17: 53 New
          +3
          They said he was running away. If he ran away, then there was no other way. With the presence of the barrel and the ability to handle it (a prerequisite for wearing it !!!), he would simply turn and aim the barrel. All ... the conflict is resolved.
          1. Ljubomir
            Ljubomir 7 November 2013 18: 13 New
            0
            With the presence of the barrel and the ability to handle it (a prerequisite for wearing it !!!), he would simply turn and aim the barrel. All ... the conflict is resolved

            Or maybe a man walked, they suddenly grab him from behind and beat him on the head; he instinctively jerked off and further down the text.
          2. Lesnik
            Lesnik 7 November 2013 20: 07 New
            +1
            Quote: Wedmak
            They said he was running away. If he ran away, then there was no other way. With the presence of the barrel and the ability to handle it (a prerequisite for wearing it !!!), he would simply turn and aim the barrel. All ... the conflict is resolved.


            To have a barrel with you and have the determination to use it, as they say in Odessa, "two big differences"
            And at the expense of this particular situation and the like, sooner or later, but for these gopniks some kind of victim would paint
        2. Misantrop
          Misantrop 7 November 2013 19: 26 New
          +4
          Quote: IRBIS
          Imagine a different picture. They attacked unexpectedly, took the barrel and, at best, stuck it in his ass. At worst, they shot and carried the barrel with them.
          As a result, these three are wanted by the HEAVY article. As a result, they will sit down if they do not catch a bullet earlier. And now these freaks are not in danger, they can easily beat anyone anyway tomorrow. And the day after tomorrow, too. And everyone will go by and look furtively, so that they themselves do not skip. Bravo!
      3. Same lech
        Same lech 7 November 2013 17: 48 New
        +5
        or imagine a beaten corny slaughtered because he had nothing to defend himself — is it better to live a lawfully obedient citizen or a dead drunk gopstopnik?
      4. alone
        alone 7 November 2013 20: 08 New
        0
        Quote: ReifA
        It’s better to imagine that no one fells and doesn’t hit at the beaten trunk and, therefore, with this.


        and if they don’t know that he has a trunk. Three corpses are guaranteed.
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 7 November 2013 20: 19 New
          +1
          Quote: lonely
          and if they don’t know that he has a trunk. Three corpses are guaranteed.
          And why only three, not eight (or how many are there in the clip for this model)? THREE corpses - only if, upon seeing the trunk, they do not stop the attack. And this is possible only if the victim was not planned to be left alive. Whom will we regret, three murderers or one defender?
  11. pluginigor
    pluginigor 7 November 2013 17: 02 New
    +1
    I think it’s necessary to ban everything from traumatism and pneumatics. On the fists you need to decide. And for self-defense and a gas bottle is enough. And then we speak for self-defense, but in fact for self-assault. Are girls and women injured? (where the statistics are), but to a strong guy and a fist to help (not fast legs fast). You have to go to the rocking chair and engage in hand-to-hand combat. Lubomyr +
    1. Ljubomir
      Ljubomir 7 November 2013 17: 20 New
      +2
      On the fists you need to decide

      Igor, empty-handed, even with three opponents, you will most likely be knocked down (if they are not slowed down). In this situation, one can only hope that they won’t be beaten for a long time.
      And for self-defense and a gas bottle is enough

      +. Once again, I emphasize that the spray gun was ALWAYS rescued when applied. Do not believe that it does not work against drunk or drug addicts. I don’t think that getting a gun, removing it from a fuse, sending a cartridge will be faster than pressing a valve.
    2. Same lech
      Same lech 7 November 2013 17: 51 New
      +3
      Well, on fists in a movie, fighting well in life is much worse - you can be pinched in an elevator, you can take a fight with hooligans on ice here, kungfu and karate will not show you all sorts of nuances when it is impossible to enter into a hand for objective reasons.
  12. Alexandr73
    Alexandr73 7 November 2013 17: 02 New
    +2
    There are no fools in power and they know how to count. They do not allow it not because they are afraid of many domestic killings; they wanted to spit. fool more fool less. They do not allow it because they are afraid to arm the people, as if they were not engaged in the shooting of officials.
    1. IRBIS
      IRBIS 7 November 2013 17: 21 New
      +2
      Quote: Alexandr73
      no matter how they shot the officials.

      Shooting officials? Yes, stupidity is absolutely not a viable argument why weapons are not allowed. For officials, it will appear in the first place - there will be enough money and an administrative resource to obtain a license. And who will shoot whom is still a big question.
      But the fact that many disputes will be resolved with the help of weapons - do not go to the grandmother, it will definitely be. It will not work to weed out psychopaths and unbalanced people, everyone is subject to stress, only tolerates it differently. Military service is not a panacea, such clowns are found there - psychiatric hospitals smoke.
      All this is the machinations of gunsmiths who want to cut dough, the level of their possible income in the article is even intentionally underestimated. Our safety is up to the lantern.
      It is necessary to establish effective police work and generally prohibit the carrying of weapons on the street.
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 7 November 2013 17: 54 New
        +3
        DAM has already established the effective work of the police by renaming it to the police, what became calmer on the street? Not very noticeable, with the influx of immigrants and visiting guest performers, the situation only worsened.
      2. Wedmak
        Wedmak 7 November 2013 17: 55 New
        +2
        that many disputes will be resolved with the help of weapons - do not go to the grandmother, it will definitely be.

        In the first couple of years, all reckless or sit down, or go into another world. Then it will become calmer.
      3. Misantrop
        Misantrop 7 November 2013 19: 31 New
        +1
        Quote: IRBIS
        It is necessary to establish effective police work
        Brilliant. good And also - to legally forbid criminals and gopot to attack civilians laughing And then peace and universal grandeur will come wassat
    2. Igor39
      Igor39 7 November 2013 17: 29 New
      +3
      Of course, they’re afraid for their ass, it’s not secretly with a shotgun or carbine that everyone will be able to approach them, but with a short barrel, they came, pulled out, shot and mustache. They understand that if our people are offended, wait for an answer, but the answer in the form they don’t want a piece of lead flying at a speed of 300 m / s instead of complaints, because they know that they will receive it.
  13. Per se.
    Per se. 7 November 2013 17: 17 New
    +5
    How many copies are already broken, but similar articles, in different variations, continue to appear with enviable persistence. Let’s, men, separate the seeds from the chaff. The legalization of a short-barrel is not just the purchase and sale of weapons, it is the legal basis for the status of military weapons, their use by a civilian, on their understanding of the degree of threat to their security. In fact, this is the return of the death penalty, moreover, without trial or investigation. There is no need to dissemble, ranting about the murders with hammers and grain cutters, these are household items whose strength is incomparably less than the capabilities of military weapons. Yes, you can kill with a pencil, tie, pillow, even glasses on the nose of a potential victim can become a weapon when they are sharply pulled and stuck in the eyes with their souls, but it’s not so easy, because you cannot outstrip as many people with the same pillow as from an automatic a five-year-old child can put a pistol. Even with hunting and sporting weapons, their status does not imply the killing of people, and their use in self-defense does not permit intentional killing. We will not confuse the right to self-defense with the right to lynching, and the love of weapons with whim. There is an arms market, there are selfish interests of the new pseudo-elite, both material and lordly whims to shoot, and so that the law is for them, to a heap of their money and lawyers. It is probably better to wish a peaceful life, with clear and fair laws, calm streets, high morality in society. If we talk about some kind of permission of the short-barrel, then for the Ministry of Internal Affairs, army and navy officers (with the obligation to promote law enforcement).
    1. IRBIS
      IRBIS 7 November 2013 17: 39 New
      +2
      Quote: Per se.
      . It is probably better to wish a peaceful life, with clear and fair laws, calm streets, high morality in society.

      I wish I could give you more than one "+"! Everything to the point. I have absolutely the same opinion!
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 7 November 2013 19: 20 New
        +1
        Quote: IRBIS
        I have a completely similar opinion!
        Thank you, it's nice to find a like-minded person.
      2. O_RUS
        O_RUS 8 November 2013 00: 10 New
        +1
        Quote: Per se.
        If we talk about some kind of permission of the short-barrel, then for the Ministry of Internal Affairs, army and navy officers (with the obligation to promote law enforcement).


        Quote: IRBIS
        I wish I could give you more than one "+"! Everything to the point. I have absolutely the same opinion!


        + good I'm with you.
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 7 November 2013 17: 58 New
      +2
      It is probably better to wish a peaceful life, with clear and fair laws, calm streets, high morality in society.

      I agree, but .... before it is not soon.
      In the hands of hunters are tens of thousands of trunks, some have two and three. Including rifled. What are the stats of killings with hunting rifles? Significantly more accident victims?
    3. intsurfer
      intsurfer 7 November 2013 20: 21 New
      +1
      Put a minus for the proposal to allow weapons only for certain categories of citizens. Neither has it. Evsyukov fell into one of these categories and how did he ensure law and order? A relative worked in a hospital - every day people are brought in with skulls broken by pans, often in serious condition. Ban pans? ;)

      In any case, the presence of weapons disciplines and forces you to monitor your actions and words. According to acquaintances who were in the states - where weapons are full on hand, people do not even lock them at home. And killing among local residents is a rarity.
      1. Krasnoarmeec
        Krasnoarmeec 8 November 2013 10: 24 New
        0
        Quote: intsurfer
        In any case, the presence of weapons disciplines and forces you to monitor your actions and words. According to acquaintances who were in the states - where weapons are full on hand, people do not even lock them at home. And killing among locals is a rarity


        By the way, I did not hear in the news that in America, some kind of maddened lunatic who started randomly shooting everyone was killed by random passers-by from his licensed trunk, and I think they have every second one. request
    4. Same lech
      Same lech 7 November 2013 20: 38 New
      +2
      Evsyukov and others like him showed well what the officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs are worth.
      You will say that this is a separate case, right.
      And I will say that such things among ordinary citizens are also a separate case.
      I never agree that an employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the FSB or other bodies should have more rights to self-defense than an ordinary citizen who is not an employee.
      There is a constitution of RUSSIA where it is written in black and white that every citizen of RUSSIA has the right to life as well as self-defense (I emphasize EVERYONE).
      As for SELF-VESSEL and SELF-DEFENSE, this is the favorite hobby of opponents of legalizing weapons, in principle heh heh funny, and if I organized lynching with a frying pan, then what about firearms.
      Apparently they are focusing on the fact that the owner of the weapon will start shooting offenders from morning to evening without a court order.
      Well, this is already out of the realm of speculation.
      1. Lesnik
        Lesnik 7 November 2013 20: 52 New
        0
        Quote: The same Lech
        Evsyukov and others like him showed well what the officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs are worth.
        You will say that this is a separate case, right.
        And I will say that such things among ordinary citizens are also a separate case.
        I never agree that an employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the FSB or other bodies should have more rights to self-defense than an ordinary citizen who is not an employee.
        There is a constitution of RUSSIA where it is written in black and white that every citizen of RUSSIA has the right to life as well as self-defense (I emphasize EVERYONE).
        As for SELF-VESSEL and SELF-DEFENSE, this is the favorite hobby of opponents of legalizing weapons, in principle heh heh funny, and if I organized lynching with a frying pan, then what about firearms.
        Apparently they are focusing on the fact that the owner of the weapon will start shooting offenders from morning to evening without a court order.
        Well, this is already out of the realm of speculation.

        Could put MOOOOOOHO pluses
      2. Per se.
        Per se. 7 November 2013 21: 57 New
        -1
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        hehe he’s funny, but if I made a lynching with a frying pan, then where does the firearm.
        If you can do it with a frying pan, why do you need a gun, Lyosha? But seriously, the difference is that the aforementioned Evsyukov did not kill people with a frying pan. You seem to be deaf to what you are telling you, military weapons are not intended for hunting or sports shooting, they are not for noise or traumatic effects, they have one purpose - the destruction of the enemy, but the legalization of this weapon, this is the legalization of shooting to defeat. Does the weapon discipline? The same Evsyukov proved that no. Weapons prevent crime? They attack armed, trained collectors, with machine guns and in bulletproof vests, do not be afraid, they used to attack Soviet militiamen in order to seize weapons, they were not afraid either. The right to self-defense? Who forbids it to you, but you, After all, want to have the right to kill, not just to defend even with a banal massacre. Under our laws, under which Serdyukov is not imprisoned, they will be selective in relation to weapons. There are lobbyists who will make money on weapons, there are bulls who have the whim of an egoist, there are people with complexes who hope that weapons can make them equal with men (as Sam Colt promised), there are those who want "the best", of the afflicted arm themselves. Think about who you belong to, and excuse me for being straightforward.
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 7 November 2013 22: 09 New
          +2
          Quote: Per se.
          legalization of this weapon, this is the legalization of shooting for defeat. Do weapons discipline? The same Evsyukov proved that no.

          In other words, do you prove that ALL the people in the country are solid Yevsyukovs who lack only trunks in their hands for bloody lawlessness? belay Examples of killer maniacs prove that a person likes to kill defenseless (by the way, killer maniacs much more than "shooters"). And how many juvenile rapists, in general, are taken aback ... WHAT NEXT? To plant EVERYONE preemptively, to shove them into fools? And castrate? You are a demagogue who blames ALL for the crime of ONE. Count the number of deaths in your bed in a dream, you will be horrified. According to your logic, you need to sleep exclusively on the rug in the corridor, the percentage of deaths there is simply negligible laughing
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 7 November 2013 22: 41 New
            0
            Quote: Misantrop
            In other words, do you prove that ALL the people in the country are solid Yevsyukovs who lack only trunks in their hands for bloody lawlessness?
            You don't need to engage in demagoguery, I lived in the Soviet Union without a pistol, the doors in the house were not locked, and there were no bars on the windows. Yes, they fought with soldier's belts, with pigs, with muzzles from fire hoses, but they did not kick the fallen one, they did not pester the guy when he was with the girl. The knife was "for scum", and no one wanted to shoot even the enemy. Finally, buy yourself a pistol, kill yourself, in your opinion, a bad person in self-defense, and be happy without parting with your weapon even in the bathroom.
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 7 November 2013 23: 03 New
              +3
              Quote: Per se.
              I lived in the Soviet Union without a gun
              Strange, really? belay And what, in the USSR there was NOT ONE case of an armed attack, if you are brandishing this case with Yevsyukov? How many were in Your The Soviet Union guest workers, Islamic terrorists, hezbut-Tahrir? In mine they somehow did not meet me. Maybe he looked bad? what
              Quote: Per se.
              Finally, buy yourself a gun, kill him

              Buy it. And shoot yourself. For you are surrounded by only scumbags, to whom even a fork can be given only under painting and under supervision.

              But I don’t need a gun (although I wouldn’t refuse it either). It’s just the RIGHT to decide for YOURSELF whether I can go outside, drive a car, have any objects for personal use. Including those with which (oh, horror) you can deprive someone of their health or life.
              I myself, understand? And not a warden with a bag of laws and regulations that determine where I can smoke, when to drink, with whom to talk, for whom to vote, etc. And answer for perfect also SAM. It is when I complete it. But not in advance and for others crime.

              You do not shoot people just because there is nothing? Or because it is not permitted by law? Experience, education, culture of behavior have nothing to do with it? Then you really can’t be a weapon CATEGORY request

              In the USSR, we built the country. SAMI, not by order. And they did not go to serve because they were unable to dodge the draft board. It was OUR country and OUR decisions. And now it is enough for the average person to pay taxes and vote, the authorities will do the rest for him. Even American-style shows are now beginning to be done with voice-over voice, prompting in which particular places to laugh. This is called DEBILIZATION ... request
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 8 November 2013 00: 30 New
                0
                Quote: Misantrop
                You do not shoot people just because there is nothing? Or because it is not permitted by law?
                If necessary, I will find a weapon. You are somehow sincerely indignant, it is impossible to take offense at you. Yes, I am for law and order, not partisanism with a crossbow. For me, weapons in the United States are not an argument, let them shoot each other in this country, which began with adventurers, bandits and other rabble from all over the world. There are such brave policemen that they prefer to shoot a kid with a toy, without risking their priceless skins. Something is not very audible that in the United States and someone helped with their weapons against the bandits, "his shirt is closer to the body." There and in the army, they have not been eager to serve for their country for a long time, and even more so, to die for it for free, preferring to delegate this debt to others for citizenship. And, you know, just me the weapon can be entrusted, because I know its power, just, I want to do my own thing, and not eliminate the flaws of law enforcement agencies. I want to live a peaceful life, not to feel like I'm in a war, with a pistol under my arm, seeing everyone as an armed threat.
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 8 November 2013 01: 14 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Per se.
                  For me, weapons in the US are not an argument
                  For me, what is happening in the United States and other "countries of the free world" is never an argument at all. And do not be offended at me, I propose to assess with an open mind WHERE the tightening of laws, the expansion of their base, the strengthening of the punitive bodies, etc. are going on. WHOM do the authorities want to receive as a result, independent-minded individuals or an obedient herd, incapable of any meaningful action without the command of the shepherd?
                  Quote: Per se.
                  I want to live a peaceful life, not to feel at war, with a gun under my arm, seeing in everyone an armed threat.
                  You think I don’t feel like it, haven’t been at war? Not at all, I want this too. And for yourself and for your loved ones. But the whole trouble is that in this world there is ONLY the security that we ourselves can provide. Strength, intelligence, assessment of his life and environment. And it’s not at all the one that the authorities will take away from us (to which we don’t give a damn about us and our worries while they are dripping a coin and other benefits).
                  In the last post, you recalled the features of life under the USSR. Yes, there were fights, pretty cruel. But then we didn’t finish and kill, not because we were afraid of the police (there weren’t so many of hers and she wasn’t omnipotent at all). They themselves were determined in accordance with their internal code. And there were enough weapons in the Crimean forests (including quite combat-ready). And they didn’t hunt people, and they didn’t lay mines. WHAT CHANGED, why are people now ready to give EVERYTHING in exchange for a tiny ghostly security? The government will not refuse, it will take ALL. That's just in exchange, she will not provide ANYTHING ...
                  1. Per se.
                    Per se. 8 November 2013 07: 00 New
                    0
                    Quote: Misantrop
                    You think I don’t feel like it, haven’t been at war? Not at all, I want this too.
                    What then are we arguing about if the understanding is close? You talk about power, that it does not provide anything, you want to defend yourself. The authorities need this, defend yourself, heal yourself, teach your children yourself, so everything can only become our problem. Why such power? Do you think the power to arm the people is "afraid"? Yes, fullness, there is already a sea of ​​weapons, buy - I do not want, and much more powerful than a PM or another pistol, a revolver. There is a powerful lobby in power, which just needs to move laws restricting the permission of short-barreled weapons and restrictions on the use of other firearms. Namely, this is the main thing, many have not yet bought weapons because they do not see the possibility of using them. The inner world of people will also change, it will change even more, it seems to me personally that morality with the right to shoot "according to the law" will not go for the better, and the law will be on the side of the rich. That's all, no one needs our safety in this, look for someone who benefits from all this, who uses our love for weapons and concern for loved ones in their own selfish interests. Sorry if I got excited somewhere.
                    1. Misantrop
                      Misantrop 8 November 2013 10: 56 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Per se.
                      What are we arguing about if the understanding is close?
                      Are we arguing? I thought that we were trying to clarify the situation between the RIGHTS and DUTIES of a citizen. A free law-abiding person who does not have organic damage to the psyche. What is possible (or impossible) for him, and what is OBLIGATED to him. You always confuse these concepts. Not surprisingly, the legislative framework in this regard is specially confused, limiting a person in his rights and loading him with duties as much as possible request
                      Quote: Per se.
                      There is a powerful lobby in power, which just needs to move the laws
                      And do you really think that only our disagreement does not allow the authorities to adopt these laws? lol The current state of affairs is beneficial for the authorities, otherwise this law would be dragged through instantly, "with one touch." The authorities have the right to award their own premium weapons, they have money for armed guards and lawyers, they have EVERYTHING. There is only no desire to fulfill YOUR duties. Do you know why? Yes, simply because the power has a MONOPOLY for this, it has become the ONLY source of security for citizens in the country. If he wants, he will protect, if he does not want, he will turn away. And we have no RIGHT to demand. Take a closer look, every year (and with every new law passed) we have less and less rights, we are trying to erase this very concept from our memory. Even now I am talking about a person's RIGHT to self-defense, and you see in this the danger of shifting the DUTIES to protect citizens from the government to ordinary people. request
                      Quote: Per se.
                      and the law will be on the side of the rich.

                      Now - isn't it? Here is just today a regular meeting on the case of the gang in the village of Kushchevskaya. IMHO, of course, but it seems that the bulk of the gang will never be punished, once again demonstrating the "independence" of the court and the toothlessness of law enforcement agencies. A typical situation, disenfranchised citizens (who could not even think of trying to resist the terror of the bandit group) and bought short-sighted authorities ... request Years of lawlessness and more than 30 corpses. These are only those that have become known.
            2. V. Salama
              V. Salama 8 November 2013 15: 11 New
              +2
              Quote: Per se.
              ... I lived in the Soviet Union without a gun, ...
              Is this advice or what?
              Quote: Per se.
              Yes, they fought with soldier's belts, with pigs, with muzzle from fire hoses, but did not kick the fallen, did not bother the guy when he was with the girl.
              What a nobility, damn it. Well, just an example for the education of the growing inadequate. Normally, this is when the guy is not pestering, even when he is without a girl. You have listed all the tools that are tools of domestic killings, you are just very lucky that you didn’t kill anyone in your fights. A physically developed guy needs only his own fists to kill and lack of emotion in a fight.
              Quote: Per se.
              The knife was "for the bastard", and nobody wanted to shoot even the enemy.
              Here, perhaps, you revealed your psychotype - for you a fight is a normal phenomenon, but you rely on your physical strength to avoid adequate resistance and are afraid of getting "unacceptable" damage in the new conditions. It makes you uncomfortable. So, the weapon is not for you, you are afraid that you can grab it yourself in a fight. You don't have to mind, I still won't believe it.
              Quote: Per se.
              Finally, buy yourself a gun, kill from him, in your opinion, a bad person in self-defense, ...

              Confirmation # 2. Who told you that guns are bought for murder? They buy it for self-defense. Judge by yourself again? So they didn’t want to kill with a lead (or didn’t succeed under the influence of emotions), but there is more risk from a gun? Are you afraid of yourself? There is also a nuance - to shoot at the situation from a registered rifled barrel, it's like leaving fingerprints and a personal signature. If it is violent, but smart, then the trunk will not be carried with you and will not be kept "in the bathroom", but in a safe with two keys (the second key is with the wife) and admired only at home after checking for adequate condition by the wife.
        2. Lesnik
          Lesnik 7 November 2013 23: 05 New
          +2
          Quote: Per se.
          Do weapons discipline? The same Evsyukov proved that no.

          how did he prove it? Or do you think that all mentally balanced citizens of Russia are serving in the so-called "law enforcement bodies" and all other citizens are crazy? and weapons to them useless?
          Quote: Per se.
          Attack armed, trained collectors, with machine guns and body armor, not to be afraid,

          That is, the collectors were attacked with bare hands in order to take possession of weapons? And I thoughtlessly thought "a lot of money and quickly" wanted
          Quote: Per se.
          previously attacked the Soviet police, in order to seize weapons, were also not afraid.

          It’s easier for modern bandits to buy weapons from the same so-called
          "law enforcement agencies" which they do
          In your comment, I see a desire to keep behind the so-called
          "law enforcement agencies" have the right to STAND OVER THE ORDINARY and justify their clearly excessive number, despite the fact that "law enforcement agencies" clearly DO NOT COPE WITH THE SHAFT OF NATIONAL BANDITISM
          These "gentlemen with a gun" will NEVER allow a citizen to PROTECT HIS LIFE AND PROPERTY with a weapon in their hands, because for them it is tantamount to signing their own powerlessness!
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 8 November 2013 01: 00 New
            0
            Quote: Forestman
            In your comment, I see a desire to keep behind the so-called
            "law enforcement agencies" have the right to STAND OVER THE ORDINARY and justify their clearly excessive number, despite the fact that "law enforcement agencies" clearly DO NOT COPE WITH THE SHAFT OF NATIONAL BANDITISM

            What do you want, to defeat national banditry by adding to the armed bandits of the armed inhabitants, the power to scare, the prospect of storming the Winter Palace or the Kremlin with the PM?
            Quote: Forestman
            o have the collectors attacked with bare hands in order to take possession of weapons? And I thoughtlessly thought "a lot of money and quickly" wanted
            It will be necessary, and for your pistol they will attack, you will not have time to get it. You will not be killed, so they will take possession of a weapon, someone will be banged out of it, while you are writing a statement about the loss, you will go as a "locomotive", then there will be a reason to look at the plot differently.
            1. Lesnik
              Lesnik 8 November 2013 12: 09 New
              +1
              Quote: Per se.
              What do you want, to defeat national banditry by adding to the armed bandits of the armed inhabitants, the power to scare, the prospect of storming the Winter Palace or the Kremlin with the PM?

              if the AUTHORITY considers its LEGAL-OBEDIENT citizens to be mentally unbalanced idiots, then the question arises - why is such a good ALL-ELECTORALLY ELECTED bureaucratic-oligarchic AUTHORITY needed?
              Quote: Per se.
              It will be necessary, and for your pistol they will attack, you will not have time to get it. You will not be killed, so they will take possession of a weapon, someone will be banged out of it, while you are writing a statement about the loss, you will go as a "locomotive", then there will be a reason to look at the plot differently.

              WHY TO ATTACK ME WITH A RISK FOR LIFE IF WEAPONS CAN BE STUPIDLY BUYED IN THE BLACK MARKET?
        3. Same lech
          Same lech 8 November 2013 03: 00 New
          +1
          Sergei but you, After all, want to have the right to kill, not just to defend yourself even with a banal massacre.
          I’m just not a supporter of killing anyone, but the question is so that an ordinary citizen has no other alternative when protecting his life and health. The face is very thin.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 8 November 2013 07: 16 New
            +1
            Quote: The same LYOKHA
            The line is very thin.
            That's right, Alexey, the line is very thin. It so happened that with whom I fought fiercely for the first time, after that I became the best friend, ready to give his life for you, who saved more than once. If we had a weapon when we first met, I don't know how it would have ended. A person should not have the right to kill another, without trial and investigation, at his own discretion and understanding of the degree of threat. This is not normal, and it is not necessary to justify everything by the possibilities of criminals, that is why they are criminals, they will always play against the rules, meanly and dishonestly, attack suddenly, beat and shoot in the back. Weapons will not help here, but they will aggravate the problem, since many "ordinary citizens" with weapons can become more dangerous than criminals, due to their possible cowardice and low morality. There is another solution, it is longer and more difficult, but, in my opinion, the only correct one - culture and law equal for everyone, well-coordinated work of state institutions, where everyone must do their job well.
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 8 November 2013 11: 19 New
              +1
              Quote: Per se.
              If we had a weapon when we first met, I don’t know how it would end.
              The same. Because the goal was to prove, not to kill. The lethal weapons around are simply immeasurable, the same naval belt punches the bottom of a standard army stool with one blow (it showed several times in a dispute). THROUGH pierces the angle of the plate. And in 2 seconds you can inflict three such blows ...
              Quote: Per se.
              for that they are criminals, they will always play against the rules, vile and dishonest, attack suddenly, hit and shoot in the back. Weapons won't help here ...
              The criminal does NOT play by the rules, he refused them. And ONLY a direct and immediate threat to him PERSONALLY can stop him, he simply does not perceive others due to the characteristics of the psyche
          2. Misantrop
            Misantrop 8 November 2013 11: 06 New
            +1
            Quote: The same LYOKHA
            The line is very thin.
            The edge is as thick as a railroad track. At the moment, when planning the next robbery, it is enough for a criminal to take into account the counteraction of ONLY grassroots security structures (which are always cut down, producing armchair rats). He is not in danger anymore, ANYWHERE. So the wave of crime started rolling, as there are just a lot of "holes" in the protection. All worries - not to catch a random bullet during the "action", and then - either not found, or "otmazhut". EVERYTHING, there are NO other REAL dangers for the offender request
            1. Timeout
              Timeout 8 November 2013 11: 24 New
              +3
              For Per se.
              It seems that you are working in the organs earlier or now. Of all my friends in one way or another connected with the government (public service) or work in the bodies, if you count on the percentage, then 80% are against legal weapons. There are several reasons:
              1. Professional deformation, especially in the police, if you got a gun, then you are 100% criminal.
              2. Russian officials have an elementary fear of spontaneous mob law.
              3. Misconception, if a person bought a barrel, then he will wear it everywhere. According to statistics, 60% buy weapons for complacency and store them on mezzanines. Those who really buy for self-defense, specifically learn to own it.

              And the usual statistics, a person with a legal trunk of 99% will never use it illegally!
          3. Lesnik
            Lesnik 8 November 2013 12: 13 New
            +1
            Quote: The same LYOKHA
            Sergey, but you, After all, want to have the right to kill, not just to defend yourself even with a banal massacre.

            The founder of the hand-to-hand school Kadochnikov equates "banal scuffle"
            to conduct b / d on the intensity and nature of the injuries received and leads an interesting STATISTICS !!!!!!! Take in love - it will open your eyes to many things
  14. anatoliy.colonel
    anatoliy.colonel 7 November 2013 17: 21 New
    +3
    I believe that weapons are URGENTLY necessary to be allowed, and despite the fact that I want to buy, or combat, or traumatism, and for some regions of our Russia, a machine gun, why I wrote with a capital letter. our country has not grown to large yet. The majority of those who are now shooting at weddings during road showdowns and in other conflict situations in their majority do not have permission for weapons, commissions do not pass offsets, they don’t pass. Only after our government has put things in order weapons that are illegally available in a country like in Mexico, only then can we talk about the civilized legalization of weapons.
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 7 November 2013 17: 58 New
      +6
      The issue of possession of weapons is not the most important in this case.
      It is necessary at the legislative level to secure the right of the victims of attacks to do anything with attacking criminals, including depriving them of their lives.

      I have no confidence that protecting a passer-by or a woman from a street robber, I myself will not be in the dock due to voluntary or involuntary harm to the health and life of the CRIMINAL.
      1. Timeout
        Timeout 8 November 2013 11: 39 New
        +1
        Shooting on the streets from injuries occurs only because it is considered non-lethal! That is, if the gum gets into a person, then he gets off with moderate injuries. Only our officials did not take into account that a person has enough places when hit, which a person simply dies, immediately or after some time. Not for nothing that in many countries such weapons were simply banned. And the term excess of necessary self-defense, such nonsense could be invented only in Russia. Even if you deprive the attacker (s) of consciousness, you have already violated the Criminal Code.
  15. Allex_B
    Allex_B 7 November 2013 17: 59 New
    +1
    I, too, for legalization, bandits, etc. it already has it!
  16. haron
    haron 7 November 2013 18: 12 New
    +2
    Dear

    It seems that everyone decided that legalization is the same, or there is permission to wear it.

    It seems like nobody mentioned "wearing" in the article. And even comparing with other countries. With what fright you decided that you can "shoot the bastard on the arbat". Who will give it to you?

    I would not want to make waves here, but people are the same everywhere. A lot of research was done in the world and in the USA, after which most of the states were forbidden to carry guns. Doma is at least an arsenal (and even then not everywhere), but wearing it is already another.

    With yourself and at home there are two big differences. For some reason, no one pays attention to them.
    1. AlNikolaich
      AlNikolaich 7 November 2013 19: 42 New
      +2
      Quote: haron
      Doma is at least an arsenal (and even then not everywhere), but wearing it is already another.

      With yourself and at home there are two big differences. For some reason, no one pays attention to them.


      I want to comment on this post. The legalization of a short-barreled weapon means the storage and carrying of a hand-held short-barreled weapon (pistol).

      Permission only to keep the short barrel kills the idea itself! Why do I need hemorrhoids with a gun when there is a hunting rifle at home?
      The very idea of ​​owning a gun is that a citizen could ride with him in a car, take him to nature, etc.
      Permission only to store the gun at home, in FIG is not necessary!
  17. barbiturate
    barbiturate 7 November 2013 18: 14 New
    +1
    there are dry statistics for countries where weapons were allowed and banned, this led to a sharp surge in violence and killings. God created people, and the Colt made them equal, as it was in the saying of the Americans.
    People still have a huge amount of weapons, and the cops and Chopovites and hunters have a lot of injuries, etc., but people go for bread and don’t think they’ll shoot him now. Why, according to the opponents of the sale of weapons, we will immediately start firing at each other, if now millions of trunks on our hands are legal, but I do not observe a couple of shootings in our cities.
    My position is that you need to be allowed to sell, but it’s hard to teach how to use it, this is serious training, a large-scale shooting gallery and legal framework, as well as abolish the limits of self-defense or significantly expand them
    1. The comment was deleted.
  18. zmey_gadukin
    zmey_gadukin 7 November 2013 18: 24 New
    +2
    I'm against.
    I can give many examples why I am opposed, but I will already express one thought, which, as a rule, gently shuts up opponents.
    You can teach a person how to use weapons, you can even teach a monkey, but how to teach a person how to shoot another person who has never shot anyone. ???That is the question, gentlemen.
    I personally know cops who have served good cops for 20 years. So, as one told me, I have never had to shoot anyone. Am I necessary? I don’t know, I haven’t tried ...
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 7 November 2013 19: 42 New
      +1
      Quote: zmey_gadukin
      I personally know cops who have served good cops for 20 years. So, as one told me, I have never had to shoot anyone. Am I necessary? I don’t know, I haven’t tried ...

      Nevertheless, they had weapons at the same time. As many as 20 years. But it costs the same person who has just retired to allow him to purchase the same PM, as he will immediately shoot all the neighbors, and then this gun will take away the murmur from him. According to the logic of the opponents of weapons, it turns out that way.
      The question is not in the pistol and not in shooting, the question is in the citizen's RIGHT to SELF-PROTECTION. And what exactly this LAW will be implemented is already the tenth matter. Whether with a gun, a stool or a meat grinder. Now the law protects the rights of the CRIMINAL to receive punishment, in no case exceeding his guilt for the deed... Or, in general, to evade him with the help of the subtleties of the judicial system. And law-abiding citizens remain "outside the brackets", they are NOT INTERESTING to the authorities. request
      1. Timeout
        Timeout 8 November 2013 11: 47 New
        +2
        Quote: zmey_gadukin
        I personally know cops who have served good cops for 20 years. So, as one told me, I have never had to shoot anyone

        I know the same of those, and many say that it would be better if they confiscated the confiscated goods and are arming themselves with a smooth-bore, all who did not have time. Just two weeks ago, they broke into a friend who had retired six months ago, recaptured the whole liver and left. It’s just that the local punks found out that he was no longer a cop, they stormed because of the fact that during the service he had turned off the blood of many, and whom he planted. And if you had a trunk at home, and so that everyone would know about it, who the hell would climb.
  19. zmey_gadukin
    zmey_gadukin 7 November 2013 18: 25 New
    0
    I'm against.
    I can give many examples why I am opposed, but I will already express one thought, which, as a rule, gently shuts up opponents.
    You can teach a person how to use weapons, you can even teach a monkey, but how to teach a person how to shoot another person who has never shot anyone. ???That is the question, gentlemen.
    I personally know cops who have served good cops for 20 years. So, as one told me, I have never had to shoot anyone. Am I necessary? I don’t know, I haven’t tried ...
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 7 November 2013 18: 47 New
      +2
      I disagree in the root of the war, thousands and thousands of young people killed each other before that they never even thought that they would have to do this.
    2. Owl
      Owl 7 November 2013 19: 54 New
      +2
      you’re scared, don’t get ...
      1. zmey_gadukin
        zmey_gadukin 11 November 2013 16: 01 New
        0
        I have
        only you did not understand what I wanted to say
  20. uzer 13
    uzer 13 7 November 2013 18: 26 New
    +2
    Everything is correctly stated in the article, thanks to the author. Somehow I bought a survival textbook for American housewives and tourists, i.e. for the layman who does not have special training. It is not recommended to visit countries where carrying weapons is not permitted. in the U.S. they understand that you should not count on police help in some banana republics, and in Russia the situation is even worse, instead of helping the police you can be killed and dumped in a city dump. There is also a statistics of deaths during self-defense. defense with a pistol is 25-30%, while defense with a knife killed about 95%. This means that a person with a pistol is likely to shoot in the legs, not wanting to kill. Now you can draw conclusions. You can buy in any food store, and a gun is not allowed at all, even under a civilian cartridge. Who benefits from this?
    1. Timeout
      Timeout 8 November 2013 13: 55 New
      +1
      do not count on police help in some banana republics.

      I’ll fix it a bit, I work and live 8 months a year in LA (Paraguay). Undoubtedly, there is a banana republic where you can live on a family of 800 people for $ 4, without denying anything to yourself, and the police work fine. Yes, they love offerings, but not to the detriment of the rule of law. Exactly 3 minutes after the emergency call and all the surrounding patrol will be near you. Carrying a weapon is not something beyond. If it is really required, you will get a license 100%!
  21. Enjoy
    Enjoy 7 November 2013 18: 37 New
    +8
    С modern by our laws, it makes little sense for an ordinary person to buy a gun. The first application for defeat, even with a minor injury, and the owner sits. Even if he wounded several scumbags who attacked his wife (daughter).

    So why should I, an ordinary guy without a pope’s deputy and a bunch of lawyers, if my state warns me in advance that I can’t shoot a person until he shoots me? If the defender is alive, not wounded, then by law the attitude towards him will be much worse than towards the attackers, no matter what they threaten the victim and no matter how many.

    What can I say if there was a case when a girl-athlete in St. Petersburg was condemned for killing a rapist with her bare hands and legs after training. Ideally, she only had to get a small pistol out of her purse and release the clip into a rabid animal, put the barrel next to the corpse, call the police and cry in anticipation of a psychologist and hot tea. In the United States, that would be and would be a heroine. Our Russian girl was engaged in some kind of martial arts and was able to cope with the rapist even with her bare hands ... And b..b was found guilty of the law!

    No, our people are quite ready for arms, for one thing, and "guests from the south" will subdue, but the law and the state - no. That's who else needs to develop ...
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 7 November 2013 19: 47 New
      +4
      Quote: Enjoy
      With our modern laws, it makes little sense for an ordinary person to buy a gun. The first application for defeat, even with a minor injury, and the owner sits. Even if he wounded several scumbags who attacked his wife (daughter).
      Would it be better not to sit, but to visit the graves? Or for years take the disabled people out for a walk, cursing the day when they turned out to be defenseless against the scum that attacked them?
    2. Timeout
      Timeout 8 November 2013 14: 45 New
      +2
      Quote: Enjoy
      if there was a case when a girl-athlete in St. Petersburg was condemned because she beat the rapist with her bare hands and legs after training

      It is strange that this case was not discussed anywhere. But there is a case where a weightlifter from Biysk stabbed her friend in a hotel while drunk. And this is where only not condemned. I know a lot of athletes who are engaged in martial arts, only the strangest thing is that they simply can’t apply their skills on the street, they are simply not ready. And cases where a Gopnik with experience easily clogs some kind of karateka with a black belt is enough.
    3. Timeout
      Timeout 8 November 2013 14: 47 New
      0
      Quote: Enjoy
      if there was a case when a girl-athlete in St. Petersburg was condemned because she beat the rapist with her bare hands and legs after training

      It is strange that this case was not discussed anywhere. But there is a case where a weightlifter from Biysk stabbed her friend in a hotel while drunk. And this is where only not condemned. I know a lot of athletes who are engaged in martial arts, only the strangest thing is that they simply can’t apply their skills on the street, they are simply not ready. And cases where a Gopnik with experience easily clogs some kind of karateka with a black belt is enough.
  22. Stinger
    Stinger 7 November 2013 18: 40 New
    0
    From an economic point of view, it is flawless. From a political point of view, not very much. A weak government will never distribute weapons to the population, especially since it is strongly disunited politically, and it does not express common interests. On Bolotnaya may not come out with white ribbons. Therefore, all arguments on the topic of "perpetrator-victim" are listened to last. America is not an example. There, power was formed from below. Initial state - all armed. When banditry became unbearable, the population first simply began to hang them, finding them at the scene of the crime, and then they began to choose people who purposefully dealt with law and order issues. In our country, the rule of law was imposed from above to protect those in power and it was enough to allow the people to arms only once in 1917 (brought them from the fronts), as a general paragraph turned out.
    1. Timeout
      Timeout 9 November 2013 14: 14 New
      0
      Dear, until 1917, weapons were on sale. And for some reason, no one fired near-foot or city. Or name at least one autocrat who would die from a sniper bullet? Bullshit, sheer bullshit ....
  23. Bigfoot_Sev
    Bigfoot_Sev 7 November 2013 19: 01 New
    +4
    Oh. article is harsh.
    the question "should it or not" is rhetorical. I'm talking about something else.

    I don’t want to pay "pistol OSAGO" because of rabid pistols, I don’t want stricter storage and wearing rules. I don't want expensive licensing and exams. just because I don’t want to pay for those who want a pestle.
    due to frostbite with injuries, and some greed, we received the existing exams and recertification. the event is especially about nothing. so, a kind of money entry threshold.

    I really don’t want to complicate and increase the cost of the existing system. but it’s easier and cheaper, with the permission of the short-barrel, it definitely won’t. therefore, well, what for these pistols.

    ps who need a weapon for training / hunting - they are buying without problems now.

    = ^ _ ^ =
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 7 November 2013 19: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: Bigfoot_Sev
      I don’t want to pay "pistol CTP" because of rabid pistols, I don’t want to tighten the rules of storage and wearing. don't want expensive licensing and exams.
      So it turns out that you ALREADY have a gun? Otherwise, all these payments have nothing to do with you.

      And do not worry about the authorities, they will even find without pistols how to withdraw money from the population wink
      1. Bigfoot_Sev
        Bigfoot_Sev 7 November 2013 21: 28 New
        +1
        I have a gun. the wife has a gun.
        legally. without any problems.
        and if the nuts are screwed in the law, it will certainly touch the smooth-bore. Well, there will not be pistols "exclusive" in the law.

        when renewing, it is already necessary to pass certification by the way.

        = ^ _ ^ =
  24. The comment was deleted.
  25. AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 7 November 2013 19: 30 New
    +4
    I put the article "-" !!!!
    Because the meaning of the article is primarily super profitswhen selling a short barrel to the public!

    -With the average price of “injury” in 7500 rubles, we get the market with an annual capacity of 450 million rubles.

    Real pistols can cost ten times more, especially if the state imposes an impressive tax on them or even monopolizes the sale: this is unlikely to greatly affect demand.
    -

    Guys, want to give thousands of rubles for PM 75? I already had a time sheet, I don’t want it anymore! I want ChZ-75 for thirty thousand!

    As for owning a short barrel, we need a licensing system, with a medical commission, exams, training (courses)! Need a change in legislation on the necessary self-defense!
    The main idea, weapons should be accessible to ordinary law-abiding citizens, with an average income. Otherwise, it will be the status of a wealthy owner (like a cell phone in the 90 years)!
    Regarding the fact that the "household" with the short-barrel will increase. Yes, I suppose that at the first stage, a surge of this kind of crime is possible. But only at the first stage. Until the "frost" is "over"!
    Nobody canceled natural selection!
    And yet, I don’t need a gun (yet). And if storage and carrying of a short barrel are allowed, I will not run headlong to pass the commission, and to acquire! But I, and most citizens should have a legitimate opportunity to acquire weapons when they need it!
    1. I am a Russian
      I am a Russian 7 November 2013 22: 36 New
      +1
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      I already had a time sheet, I don’t want it anymore!


      winked PM ... short range ... good barrel. Just don't be lazy ... daily activities and "10" is yours.
  26. Owl
    Owl 7 November 2013 19: 52 New
    +3
    I would like to have a real opportunity to purchase a legal (shot, etc.) pistol, even an old reliable PM will save life and health if necessary, but in the near future (50-100 years) the power of traitors to the Motherland ("plush Dima" and company) and " thieves in law "(those who steal in legitimate positions in the government), which is very much afraid of fellow citizens, suddenly a few percent of their total number may own a pistol," the government "which makes a profit, including from illegal uncontrolled migrant workers, which is "guarded" by the FSO, the FSB and the police, will never allow an ordinary citizen, not convicted, not mentally retarded, to legally purchase a pistol, but will continue to present "premium" guns to deputies and ministers.
  27. intsurfer
    intsurfer 7 November 2013 19: 58 New
    +2
    And let's stop selling cars? After all, so many times different vodyati drove into stops and killed a bunch of people. Also with weapons - some scumbags will get somewhere and arrange shooting just like that. And the remaining 99.99999% will shoot at shooting ranges and shooting ranges. Why in the United States do the main statistics of murders in those states where the sale of weapons is prohibited or severely limited? Why don’t we hear about the shootings on the streets of the Caucasus, where the majority have weapons (legally or not)? And for the thousandth time I’m writing: shooting ranges and shooting ranges are places of increased politeness. A soccer match is more likely to suffer than a shooting range. :)
  28. The comment was deleted.
  29. intsurfer
    intsurfer 7 November 2013 20: 10 New
    0
    Quote: Altona
    I bought pneumatic, for shooting balls, Makarov most conveniently lies in the hand ...

    The taste and color of all the markers are different. When choosing a pneumatic gun, Beretta92 (all of iron, size and weight like a real one) just as a native fell into the hand. Recently I noticed that even when I hold the umbrella, the index finger of my right hand lies as if along the bolt frame. :)
  30. vanaheym
    vanaheym 7 November 2013 20: 26 New
    +7
    To begin with, before allowing the sale of short-barrels, it is necessary to abolish such a concept as "excess of the necessary defense", otherwise any self-defense will end with ships and landings. Any self-defense against attack must be legal. He attacked or created a threat to life - it means he himself understood the possible consequences of his actions.
    1. Savva30
      Savva30 7 November 2013 21: 57 New
      +1
      But what about the "imaginary defense"? The thug came up to light a cigarette, and you are frightened with the whole clip in it ... Now the times are muddy, everyone is afraid of everything ... and we will also distribute the trunks. How many millions of us are there?
      1. Andrew-53
        Andrew-53 8 November 2013 02: 22 New
        +2
        So they won’t light it, but they will wear their matches.
  31. The comment was deleted.
  32. LLIpaM
    LLIpaM 7 November 2013 21: 38 New
    0
    Ha! An interesting article - the author says at first let's not talk about the "moral and legal aspects" of this issue, and then at the end he nevertheless inserts his own word about the "correctness" of the legalization of weapons. \
    PEOPLE when you turnips then you start to think ?! I’m still not tired of living according to the principle - first do something, and then think about what you did, however, that’s how our government acts, that’s why there’s such a ** in our country!
    Well, you legalize weapons, but the state will be enriched, and people, people ... that you want ordinary people to work their whole lives to hold the funeral of their relatives?
    Stop talking nonsense about the United States and other countries where weapons are legalized and all the type of top, but they * like this! You don’t watch the news, hear and don’t see how in the same ghetto neighborhoods corpses are carried out in batches every day, where the youngsters having seen the militants and played enough games at the computer shoot their relatives and friends! Do you want that?
    Do you really think it will be better in Russia, but nothing of the kind! Given the weakness of the law in our country, the hostility towards all Caucasians after the Chechen war and subsequently turned into real hatred, enormous drunkenness of the population and inadequate behavior, the degradation of youth both in educational and psychological and spiritual ones plan, we will begin such a war that my mother does not grieve - it will be scary to appear on the street not only at night, but during the day. People do you want this?
    Stop whining about how we can't defend ourselves. You yourself write on the forum you need to unite and joint forces to resist all kinds of abomination. So let's do this, and those who consider themselves very weak - you need to start boxing, wrestling, martial arts, and not write any kind of henna - "I'll buy myself a gun and I will be happy, peace in the world." There will not be, there will be only mountains of innocent corpses, anger, death and tears ...
  33. intsurfer
    intsurfer 7 November 2013 21: 40 New
    0
    Quote: zmey_gadukin
    Can a person be taught to handle weapons

    Even need with young nails. I’m interested in shooting at a shooting range or at a shooting range with a pistol or rifle and a gun. Why can't I buy and wear them in uncharged form? Let the police stop me and check. Anyone taking out a weapon unnecessarily should be shot on the spot. But when I come to the shooting range and stand in front of the target, I can shoot as much as I can.

    Why does the government consider all Russians alcoholics, inadequacies, potential mass murderers, etc.?!!
    1. Bigfoot_Sev
      Bigfoot_Sev 7 November 2013 21: 48 New
      0
      basically you can wear.
      sheathed. discharged. and besides mass events. everything is spelled out in the law.

      I put the barrels in the car, put cartridges there and calmly drive to the shooting range. I can go to McDonald's on the way to get ice cream. I don’t take the trunk to McDonald's, because it’s somehow wild. even discharged.

      = ^ _ ^ =
  34. Druid
    Druid 7 November 2013 21: 42 New
    +2
    AK-47? Two hundred bucks, and he is yours.
    The author is far from reality - 300 dollars and he is yours legally - http://molotarms.ru/index.php?p=shop&action=showproduct&id=447&cid=99&pname=ohot

    nichii-samozaryadnyi-karabin-ma-ak

    The author also does not take into account the moronic post-Soviet laws both in Russia and in many CIS countries - the defender will sit down after the first shot at the "unarmed" gopnik. So the damage to the economy will be colossal.

    Article minus.
  35. Bigfoot_Sev
    Bigfoot_Sev 7 November 2013 21: 42 New
    +1
    Here I am extremely interested, those who write that "the government will never give weapons to the people" at least once tried to get a smoothbore?
    what's so complicated? who forbids?
    like in the OBI ad - "take it and do it!".

    Quote: intsurfer
    And for the thousandth time I’m writing: shooting ranges and shooting ranges are places of increased politeness. A soccer match is more likely to suffer than a shooting range. :)


    this is a real fact.

    = ^ _ ^ =
  36. Savva30
    Savva30 7 November 2013 21: 53 New
    +1
    Ten times more expensive ... is it 75000 per barrel, not fat? I read somewhere: if you constantly train with a knife, you may be able to repel an attack, but if you think you can repel an attack only because you have a knife, then you are very mistaken ... something like that. The point is that not everyone is ready to kill, he thinks he is ready ...
  37. Snipe 74
    Snipe 74 7 November 2013 22: 05 New
    +4
    Quote: Wedmak
    It is probably better to wish a peaceful life, with clear and fair laws, calm streets, high morality in society.

    I agree, but .... before it is not soon.
    In the hands of hunters are tens of thousands of trunks, some have two and three. Including rifled. What are the stats of killings with hunting rifles? Significantly more accident victims?

    You better find out the statistics of deaths from alcohol. And she (statistics) speaks of more than 600 thousand per year. And no one is doing this. What did you howl about the threat to the lives of citizens? I do not believe that the state is worried about my life, and about yours too. I would agree with the opponents of the sale of weapons if it (weapons) were banned for everyone, without exception. And so, what the cops get the trunks, the bandits too, the rich and business guards and high fences. And if something happens to me, what to do? Precisely because they remain unpunished, they take away our property, evict from our apartments ... If you personally do not want to have a barrel, why deprive me of it? And to motivate by the fact that I will become potentially dangerous is stupid and not correct. In this case, we are all (men) potential rapists, because we have the "trunk" for this.
  38. Alex Nick
    Alex Nick 7 November 2013 22: 47 New
    +1
    I do not believe that the state is worried about my life, and yours too. .... Golden words, they would put a monument, but the country is small, nowhere.
  39. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 7 November 2013 23: 22 New
    -1
    That's right, few people die from everything, pistols need to be introduced.
    It is clear that everything will be adjusted right there by itself.
  40. Kite
    Kite 7 November 2013 23: 54 New
    -1
    Well, the author is quite about ... l, such arguments (profit in monetary units) "for" the COP leads !!
    It is increasingly being confirmed that people dream of COP in their pocket, to say the least, ......!
    Passionately want to protect the weak? So go serve! (at the same time, there you will find out when the right to use a firearm appears, we don’t have 3,14ndosia in which you can shoot a kid with a toy machine in his hands)
    1. Massik
      Massik 8 November 2013 00: 14 New
      +3
      So go serve! (at the same time, there you will find out when the right to use a firearm appears, we don’t have 3,14ndosia in which you can shoot a kid with a toy machine in his hands)
      We know, if weapons were issued at all, a verbal warning for any aggression, and then a bullet in a part of the body. To disperse the rally, they give a baton and a shield, but not a machine gun. They gave me a weapon of no relaxation, all incidents just stem from excessive "relaxation", when the daily "received" - "given" turns into an ordinary procedure, you always have to think with your head, and if you take out a weapon, shoot, thoughts will no longer help. Most of them are like - "Now I'm going to scare him with a pistol and all the ZBS", but nothing like that, if you decide to aim at the target then be ready to shoot, always !!!
      1. m_o_r_o
        m_o_r_o 8 November 2013 01: 07 New
        0
        Quote: Kite
        Well, the author is quite about ... l, such arguments (profit in monetary units) "for" the COP leads !!

        We have capitalism, and with it, only profit is important, it takes human life into account only as a way to get that profit am
      2. Kite
        Kite 8 November 2013 07: 54 New
        -1
        Quote: Marssik
        Most of them are like - "Now I'm going to scare him with a pistol and all the ZBS", but nothing like that, if you decide to aim at the target, then be ready to shoot, always !!!

        - Not certainly in that way! Weapons should be taken out (for their own safety) only when they have made the final decision on their use. By threatening with a weapon, stop a small danger, but create for yourself much greater in the subsequent time. It will no longer be followed by a threat with verbal accompaniment, but by a sudden attack with the aim of revenge and with the capture of your scarecrow.
        Attention question! What is the likelihood that after you understand and decide on the use of weapons, you will have the opportunity (you will be provided with it ;-))) to bring the weapon into combat position?
        Police officers are armed in the service, but this is not a policy from the Almighty, they die and often!
        1. Massik
          Massik 8 November 2013 17: 08 New
          0
          Police officers are armed in the service, but this is not a policy from the Almighty, they die and often!
          The majority perish from their own arrogance and relaxation, the minority is simply unlucky. Example: you get out of the car and two trunks are unloaded from a nearby bush point-blank, where are your chances? They call for a family scandal, the owner is a hunter, the ensign knocks on the door and yells "Open the police" In response, 2 holes of 15 cm in diameter appear above his head (the short man was lucky, I would have blown my head off) too lazy to first look into the windows of the house. This one
          as you understand and decide on the use of weapons, you will have the opportunity (you will be provided with it ;-))) to bring the weapon into combat position
          it’s never been in my entire service, you go on a call - a cartridge in the barrel, on the fuse and in the holster.
  41. tomket
    tomket 8 November 2013 00: 49 New
    0
    somehow you want to go to the cinema without body armor.
  42. m_o_r_o
    m_o_r_o 8 November 2013 01: 02 New
    +1
    Quote: Alexej
    Quote: Wedmak
    9mm a bullet in the leg or arm will cool the ardor of anyone.
    Or piss him off even more.

    nevertheless, it seems to me that the ardor will cool, and not only with the leg and arm, the head can also suffer, even forever soldier
  43. intsurfer
    intsurfer 8 November 2013 06: 12 New
    +1
    Quote: Per se.
    Something is not very audible for anyone in the United States to help with their weapons against bandits

    google it and find that in the US, citizens shoot 2 times more criminals than the police. At the same time, innocent victims of random rebounds, etc. - At times less than at the hands of the police.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 8 November 2013 09: 53 New
      0
      Firstly, the death penalty has not been abolished in the United States, and secondly, all these statistics are very sly, often far-fetched by the customer, the most powerful arms lobby of the United States, which has opened its mouth to Russia. The concept "my home is my fortress" is used by US citizens, but, as one American acquaintance advised, if someone climbed into the house there, and you left with a weapon, the thief must be killed, not injured, otherwise they may be sued according to his testimony not in your favor. And everything is according to the law. Are they shooting twice as many criminals as policemen? This is in comparison with what and whom, recently their police shot a kid with a toy AK, I would not be surprised if ordinary citizens can do this two or three times more. What brave people live in the United States, with a cowardly army, a general unwillingness to serve, the selfish morality of the owners. Undoubtedly, there are many good people in the States, but I do not believe in general disinterestedness and risk in the fight against real bandits, and not shooting at punks and homeless people.
  44. rennim
    rennim 8 November 2013 13: 26 New
    0
    If Russia had strict enforcement of laws and control over them, then there would never have been a need to raise the issue of legalizing weapons. The state today is neither able to control nor execute. Corruption and lawlessness. Everything and everyone can be bought ... What kind of control over the legalization of a gunshot can be discussed even if we do not have control over state funds and immigrants. The legalization of weapons now is the path to uncontrolled access to means of destroying people. A mass of innocent people will die. Much more than now. It’s just that everyone should decide for himself to live in Russia, either to leave or set the brains of the authorities so that it finally starts working and ensures the safety of life of every citizen.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 8 November 2013 18: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: rennim
      The legalization of weapons now is the path to uncontrolled access to means of destroying people. A mass of innocent people will die.
      Wake up. Uncontrolled access to weapons of destruction is already NOW. Moreover, it is for that part of the population that is engaged in this
      1. Massik
        Massik 9 November 2013 00: 59 New
        0
        Do we have a short-barrel, or not, it will be almost imperceptible, and since 87, the tendency is to hammer on the head)))
  45. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 9 November 2013 12: 54 New
    0
    The hammer of choice for professionals. You must be able, plus nerves of steel. And with pistils, any youngster will begin to consider himself an alpha-hawk with corresponding consequences for others. About how it looks like a special television series was shot, called "Ambulance". If we ignore the difficult personal lives of the heroes, everything is shown as it really is. Shootings, showdowns among young people, casualties among bystanders, shooting, shooting, corpses, corpses. And now for a moment it is worth thinking, at your nearest ambulance station they know how to provide assistance with a serious firearm? Or you will be taken to a military hospital a hundred and twenty kilometers away, because at least some experience is only there, and of course, most likely, they will not be taken. They will object to me that this is a series and everything is invented there, it is understandable in our life for some reason everything will be different. The bandits are already all armed without exception, and corpses are not lying around at every step, and it is understandable that ordinary adequate citizens will handle weapons a priori more carefully! I propose to attend a couple of youth weddings and imagine, towards the end, that a couple of three citizens have pistols with them.
    1. Timeout
      Timeout 9 November 2013 14: 09 New
      +1
      Dear, in general, it speaks of legal weapons, which should not be alfashavkas, as you called, but among normal sane people. Shooting is now happening regularly, and the same alfashawks are shooting from injuries, knowing in front that they will not be killed for anything, and cripple people. And for a real war trunk, for which we must answer, such simply will not subscribe. You are a respected, really divorced from the present, and so far you have not been strengthened by the very alpha-fighters ...
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 9 November 2013 19: 15 New
        0
        And for a real war trunk, for which we must answer, such simply will not subscribe

        That is, normal, sensible people will not get in touch with a combat pistol, for obvious and obvious reasons.
        Judging by the text, you still revolve in the circle of alfashavks and they regularly fasten you, that is, you need a gun to prove who is the alfashavkest. So write, I'm cool, but constantly flies in, I need a gun to punish the offenders and become the coolest. But the gun should only be with me, since I am a normal sane person, and everyone else is not normal and they understand they cannot sell pistols. Well, maybe except for a couple of my friends who, although they thump all the time, but the guys are great. And about the isolation, you guessed it, I was deaf-mute from Mars, the current flew in and did not know what was happening around.
        1. V. Salama
          V. Salama 10 November 2013 11: 06 New
          0
          Quote: chunga-changa
          "And for a real combat barrel, for which such (alphashawks - see the previous sentence) simply will not sign" - That is, normal, sane people with a combat pistol will not get involved, for quite understandable and obvious reasons.

          Well, let's say, the identification of sane people with alphashawks is not because of "unreasonableness", but from an excess of emotions (although, here you have to trust the weapon - you still need to think about it), but your statement "sane people with a combat pistol will not contact, according to quite understandable and obvious reasons "is false and easily refuted. I am not asking you to prove its truth, a lie cannot be proved, it is useless, a lie can only be refuted. But still I wonder what are the "quite understandable and obvious reasons for sensible people"? If you mean "lack of readiness to be held responsible for your illegal actions," then I congratulate you on your "sanity" - you have criminal thinking or you are really "from Mars" and you have an alien logic.
  46. dark2201
    dark2201 15 January 2014 15: 41 New
    0
    I am for the legalization of weapons, it’s more dangerous than it’s definitely not on the street now, if you introduce strict rules on permission to issue and carry. For a year he himself was in critical situations where he had to defend himself than to have a hand or run away from the armed Caucasians.