Military Review

Pistols and revolvers to the people

306
Self defense with weapons in the hands - the right of a citizen, not the average


The right to personal weapons remains one of the burning problems of Russian society. Interest in it periodically increases with high-profile crimes, then subsides, but, unlike ordinary citizens, who are only concerned with everyday affairs, the Right to Arms social movement consistently and steadily leads this topic. Representatives of almost all political forces of the country - deputies of various levels: from United Russia, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Liberal Democratic Party, nationalists and liberals, former minister in the government of Gaidar Andrei Nechayev and the famous communist Alexander Prokhanov participated in the 2 congress of the movement last fall. It is curious that even the leader of the CP, Sergey Mironov, recently a tough opponent of our organization, sent a greeting to the delegates to the congress.

Delegates to the congress gave many arguments in favor of the need for citizens to have a weapon of self-defense, spoke about the irrationality of the ban on it in Russia, were outraged by the norms of current legislation. After all, the ban on armed self-defense makes a citizen a man in the street and an eternal victim, insults human dignity.

The most common argument of our opponents is this: the inhabitants of the country are largely uncultured, prone to drunkenness, rudeness, incontinence, and it’s dangerous to trust them. The fact that these humiliating characteristics are repeated by ordinary people who seemed to have a vested interest in personal safety and the protection of their rights, in my opinion, is a serious fault of the current government. In my deep conviction, this is not a “rational”, “reasonable”, “sober” and other view of the Russians, it is a manifestation of deep disrespect not only for compatriots, but primarily for themselves. And the power of this marmelade self-deprecation in every way cultivates through its media.

Pistols and revolvers to the peopleIn the 60 of the last century, a wave of youth street criminality swept through the Soviet Union. The militia was then armed with batons, all workers were obliged to be on duty in the people's guards, but nothing helped. In the evening, the city streets turned into a jungle, teeming with brazen impudent punks. Here is what Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote under the impression of the situation at that time: “There is the most absurd article of 1926 in the Criminal Code (Criminal Code of the Year 139)“ On the Limit of Necessary Defense ”, and you have the right to bare the knife not before the criminal has brought a knife over you, and stab him no sooner than he spews you. Otherwise they will judge you! And the articles about the fact that the biggest criminal is an attacker on the weak, are not in our legislation! .. This fear of surpassing the measure of necessary defense leads to complete relaxation of the national character.

Red Army soldier Alexander Zakharov began to beat a hooligan near the club. Zakharov took out a folding penknife and killed the hooligan. Received ten years for it as for pure murder. “What should I have done?” He wondered. Prosecutor Artsishevsky answered him: “I should have escaped!”. So who grows up bullies?

The state under the Criminal Code prohibits citizens to have firearms or edged weapons, but does not take over their defense! The state surrenders its citizens to the power of bandits and through the press dares to call for “public resistance” to these bandits! Resistance to what? ”(“ The Gulag Archipelago ”, that is, 2).

Half a century has passed since then, generations of politicians and citizens have changed, totalitarianism has been branded and exposed, but the law on personal self-defense in the spirit of 1926 has been preserved so carefully and efficiently, as if the basis of its slightest change in Russia is capable of collapsing the foundations of the state. At all times in all countries warriors are considered the foundation of the people and the state. These are not always people in uniform and with weapons, but always those who protect, help, are incapable of meanness, are ready to give their lives in the name of duty. That is, people of honor, salt of the earth. And in today's Russia, these are the people most defenseless. They do not have the means to protect and help, and the honor does not allow to stand aside or save their own skin when armed bastards create lawlessness. So we see constantly how helpless and useless the best die. When the psychopath Vinogradov shot at people, one of them rushed at him with his bare hands and was immediately killed. Would have had a weapon - he would have survived himself, would have neutralized the scum and would have saved others.

For the sake of justice, let me remind you of a well-known case in the USA, where a similar psychopath shot schoolchildren. The director rushed at him without weapons and died - this school was an area where weapons were forbidden even to guards. But in America there are not too many gun free zones, and Russia is so complete. The stubborn ban on weapons and the protection of human dignity makes popular the conspiracy thesis that the country's leadership, reliably protected by the Federal Guard Service, uses criminals and punks as a tool to control people. The frightened people - the eternal “tolerant” - are in dire need of law enforcement agencies, ready to go for any violations of their freedoms and rights in the hope of personal security.

For me, such a conspiracy theory looks too simple and crude, if only because there are already quite a few influential figures in power who openly advocate for the return of the rights to a normal civilian short term and a corresponding change in the Law on Self-Defense. Things are much thinner. The question of the right to weapons is one of the visible tips of the iceberg, which can be called the philosophy of the relationship of power with the people. The system has been established for a long time and is very durable; it is painful to change it, but it is necessary. For periods of national storieswhen the state ruled literally all aspects of life, the majority got used to paternalism, having lost important skills of personal responsibility and ability to make decisions. The time of lack of freedom violated the natural proportions between real citizens - internally free, self-reliant and willing to take risks, and the philistines - those who are inclined to mindless submission in exchange for wealth and protection. Citizens died or were driven out on the sidelines of life, and the townsfolk multiplied under the strict supervision of the state. The negative selection system went bankrupt and disappeared, and its imbalances remained. In this regard, I recall the statement of the great Niccolò Machiavelli: "Disarming the people, the government thus offends them with distrust, and this speaks of the cowardice and suspiciousness of the government."

The inhabitants feel the spinal cord that in equal conditions always give in to the citizens, but this is not desirable. Ready to recognize the superiority of the authorities, but not the neighbor. So they bother to reduce their opportunities so that they do not stand out and grow in life. After all, if legalized pistols, to give the opportunity to defend and defend without the risk of prosecution, then the strong in spirit will be able to stand on equal terms to criminals and jugglers, to quickly occupy the best places in the social hierarchy, will receive legal recognition in society.

This is a positive selection, an alternative to it is the degradation of the nation, where "silence is blissful in the world." The desire to strangle on the vine the potential success of strong and decisive remains one of the most vile methods of the psychology of degeneration. When you say to such people that with legal pistols you can again, at the moment of danger, shout “Guard!” With the expectation of effective help from others, they declare that the police should be forced to improve their work. And it is useless to say that in Russia there is actually the largest percentage of police in the world among the population, but there’s no point in it.

The top leadership of our country makes various efforts to get Russia on the path of innovative development. Many such projects have already been announced and financed, among them Skolkovo, designed to attract the best scientific and engineering personnel in the country and the world. A lot of money has been invested, built, residents have been attracted, embezzlements have been revealed, corruption scandals have gone, and recoil has gone unnoticed. But the best cadres mostly seek the United States, Switzerland, Canada, Germany, France, Israel, the Scandinavian countries, and Skolkovo does not, although the material conditions are offered no worse than abroad. Hence, there is no single reason for bread. All these countries have a high scientific and technical reputation and the most liberal legislation on weapons and self-defense.

The government of Russia is against civilian short-haul allegedly together with the majority of the people, but it’s precisely in this part of the inhabitants that the slavish desire to obey dominates for being fed and protected. A slave from the owner is waiting for handouts, he takes time off from work, steals that he is lying badly, he has no sense of duty, no shame, no gratitude. Who trusts so, behind them the eye and the eye, every trusted penny has to be controlled repeatedly. This population of any serious responsibility and does not need to be trusted with money for creative economic self-realization and a weapon for personal self-defense. Such people go to the polls not to choose the first among equals, and in order to put the breadwinner over him and the country, who will always be scolded, they will never help him, and if he fails and feeds poorly, he is ready to overthrow him joyfully and cruelly.

Our entire state apparatus is sharpened to control such a contingent, applying the methods developed for it to the whole people. And the people are changing, the creative class with civil consciousness is growing rapidly. The methods and philosophy of the current state administration can only insult citizens so far, cause complete disbelief and unwillingness to cooperate in all innovative initiatives. Because there is a feeling, as in the subtext of all relations of power and society, there is a suspicion that every person is a possible swindler, a traitor or a klutz. Without respect of the state for the true freedom of the individual, no breakthroughs will succeed.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
306 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mirag2
    mirag2 5 February 2014 06: 23
    -15%
    I didn't understand something - is this an attempt to draw attention to the new "law on weapons"?
    Rather, the need to change the old?
    Nonsense - I love weapons very much, but I would never agree that gunshots would be sold to the public, except for hunters.
    And traumatism must be prohibited - it is still a weapon intended both for defense and for attack, and our situation in the country is not so stable and the people are not so full that they would become a law-abiding German, following the signs ...
    1. Civil
      Civil 5 February 2014 06: 50
      +62
      1. Who needs it will find the trunk without any problems.
      2. Most of the killings take place on household grounds, the main killer is a kitchen knife, should it be banned too?
      3. The weapon gives a sense of security, and for men also moral satisfaction, therefore it is an anti-depressant.
      these are the arguments FOR

      and now AGAINST:
      1. The police will start shooting all those who have not turned so indiscriminately.
      2. Domestic conflicts will develop into a shootout in which random residents of our crowded cities may suffer.
      3. On the banks of lakes and rivers where gazelists and their thick-assed friends rest, they have to put up a tent instead of setting up a tent for the night.
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 5 February 2014 08: 17
        +12
        Quote: Civil
        1. Who needs it will find the trunk without any problems.

        Conduct an experiment, try to buy a trunk and I guarantee that you’ll be sold to an opera by 99,9%, who will record everything on video and then put you down laughing
        1. domokl
          domokl 5 February 2014 08: 44
          +39
          Horses mixed up in a heap, people ... Delusional article .. The masthead is complete. What prevents me from buying a hunting rifle, even a rifled barrel, I won’t talk about Saiga ... What prevents me from buying injuries for self-defense? Nothing but my own laziness. Go execute documents lazily, drawer for weapons do lazily, etc.
          The only sensible idea is to change the law on the limits of self-defense ... They tell us your home is your fortress. However, shoot from a gun of a (legitimate) robber, even with weapons. And you are already a prisoner ... So what kind of fortress is this? Self-defense does not there may be limits. Self-defense should not only be adequate to attack, but at times more serious. I got a knife - get a bullet in the forehead.
          Well, a pearl about slaves is generally a popular thing ... Just like the thesis about the departure of scientists abroad due to more liberal weapons laws. Author, it is necessary to hangover ...
          1. Geisenberg
            Geisenberg 5 February 2014 10: 24
            +15
            Quote: domokl
            Horses mixed up in a heap, people ... Delusional article .. The masthead is complete. What prevents me from buying a hunting rifle, even a rifled barrel, I won’t talk about Saiga ...


            In fact, now it’s easier to buy a criminal trunk than to obtain official permission, especially for a rifled one. You just do not know, well, that is, you just do without a clue how the official sale of weapons.
            1. vadimN
              vadimN 5 February 2014 10: 39
              +16
              Sorry, dear, but either you live in a region where it is not law that rules, but the police officers are completely messed up, or it’s you who have no idea how the arms are officially sold and you never bought them yourself.
              There is a law on weapons in which the entire procedure is clearly spelled out. There are specific dates during which LROs are required to consider ...
              I have owned weapons for over 10 years. There is a hunting smoothbore, a rifled "Saiga", and a compact trauma for carrying where you cannot drag a gun with you ... And there have never been any problems with registration, re-registration and purchase. I don’t know about you, but it’s like that in St. Petersburg. The whole procedure takes 2 weeks prescribed by law. Medical certificate, short-term courses (if for a beginner), a small set of documents and photos in the LRO and after 2 weeks you go and get permission to purchase ... Yes, there are queues ... But you can survive - you do not register every day, but only once five years.
              Follow the law and demand its implementation from LRO - and everything will be without problems.
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 5 February 2014 12: 59
                +5
                Quote: vadimN
                There is a law on weapons in which the entire procedure is clearly spelled out. There are specific dates during which LROs are required to consider ...

                We are talking about individual weapons, i.e. pistols. You do not buy it in the store, do not issue it in LRO. And you obviously will not carry a gun with you, and you cannot do this without a cover. Injury is not a panacea, moreover, it is dangerous because a person assumes that it is non-lethal and therefore applies in far from true situations.
                1. dustycat
                  dustycat 5 February 2014 20: 15
                  +1
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  Injury is not a panacea, moreover, it is dangerous because a person assumes that it is non-lethal and therefore applies in far from true situations.

                  Only Pinocchio believes that injury is safe.
                  A normal person understands what it is.
                  Another thing is that most woodpeckers are not registered in psychiatry and narcology.
                  But at the same time, they quickly lose the right to acquire weapons. Unfortunately, often with dire consequences for the innocent.
                  So this is a question of introducing modern diagnostic technologies for LRO - which is much more useful than a five-hour hearing on how to chop nuts with a gun.
            2. dustycat
              dustycat 5 February 2014 20: 05
              +1
              Quote: Geisenberg
              You just do not know, well, that is, you just do without a clue how the official sale of weapons.


              Is it too hard to find a local hunting community?
              In the absence of outstanding convictions and registration with the psychiatric dispensary, in the presence of negative tests in the drug dispensary and storage space and good relations with the district police officer from a month to six and a 410 caliber syaga.
              You need to restore order with the local authorities. Or with your reputation.
              1. Geisenberg
                Geisenberg 5 February 2014 20: 37
                +3
                Quote: dustycat
                Quote: Geisenberg
                You just do not know, well, that is, you just do without a clue how the official sale of weapons.


                You need to restore order with the local authorities. Or with your reputation.


                I don't need either one or the other. Regarding obtaining permission: even having all the certificates on hand from the first time, it is far from always possible and not for everyone to get it. Two woodpeckers are sitting in the office and "on the dump" are shifting papers, and there are 40 people in line, and always. You can't ask them anything, any jamb with documents automatically indicates the call the next day. For example, I work from 9 to 6 and 5 days a week. To get a certificate - 1 day, to issue documents, with the help of the hunting society it is 1 evening and 1 day to defend the queue. And it's not a fact that I'm standing properly. TOTAL 2 working days ... when will I work ??? Who works for whom? I am a permitter or a permitter for the state, why should I? In short, you see too far from the topic.
                1. nerd.su
                  nerd.su 5 February 2014 22: 57
                  +1
                  Quote: Geisenberg
                  In order to receive certificates - 1 day, to issue documents, using a hunting society as a skajj, it is 1 evening and 1 day to defend. And not the fact that I am standing properly. TOTAL 2 working days ... when will I work ???

                  I don’t understand something, are you working in an American office? Will there be no question? If you can’t even maintain normal relations with your bosses so that you are released from work a couple of times, if you have no patience to sit in the queue for several hours, if you are annoyed that a person, in the performance of his professional duties, forces you to redo documents, because you aren’t enough to fill them - in general, if you are so nervous on such trifles, why do you need a weapon? Work with a psychologist, drink a sedative course, then try again. The licensing system in itself eliminates the majority of illiterate nervous comrades.
                  Quote: Geisenberg
                  Who works for whom? Am I on a permit or a permit on a state, who is on me?

                  You are not going to buy a bike, so do not overdo it, you will find the time.
                  By the way, you forgot about getting a medical certificate. It can also stretch for a couple of days.
                2. uzer 13
                  uzer 13 10 February 2014 18: 31
                  0
                  This is the true truth, I also constantly encounter such problems. It is nothing more than a hidden attempt to limit the possibility of acquiring hunting weapons.
            3. Bigfoot_Sev
              Bigfoot_Sev 7 February 2014 17: 37
              +1
              officially getting permission is just about disgrace.
              month. one month. from the moment of the photo, until the receipt of the POX.
          2. Defender
            Defender 5 February 2014 17: 39
            +6
            Russian Truth of Yaroslav 1016: "If anyone threatens with a stick, he is free to answer with a sword"!
        2. S_mirnov
          S_mirnov 5 February 2014 09: 19
          +2
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          99,9% will be sold to you by an opera who will record everything on video and then put you in prison

          First he will ask for a bribe, but if you don’t give money, then he will plant him.
        3. military
          military 5 February 2014 09: 30
          +2
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          99,9% will be sold to you by an opera who will record everything on video and then put you in prison

          now, where, where, but here I agree ... request
        4. rereture
          rereture 5 February 2014 09: 32
          +15
          I went to Abkhazia, near the hotel we were offered to buy ak and a couple of shops for a nominal fee of 1600r, in response to the fact that we are not local, they said that they would be transported across the border for another 500r. It was two years ago.
        5. Geisenberg
          Geisenberg 5 February 2014 10: 22
          +5
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          Quote: Civil
          1. Who needs it will find the trunk without any problems.

          Conduct an experiment, try to buy a trunk and I guarantee that you’ll be sold to an opera by 99,9%, who will record everything on video and then put you down laughing


          From the same trunk of the same opera ... So 100% if you want - buy.
          1. nerd.su
            nerd.su 5 February 2014 15: 09
            +3
            Quote: Geisenberg
            From the same trunk of the same opera ...

            Somehow the guy worked for us, about 20 years old. So, I remember, when they talked about one principal master, he always said - yes, I would have drowned him in a swamp, but I would have buried him under the moss! laughing As a result, he recently discovered by chance that he now has a conditional conviction for some petty hooliganism, he works quietly for himself, and is not going to drown anyone anywhere else.
            Quote: Geisenberg
            So 100% if you want - buy.

            If you have good friends in the right circles - no problem. If not, you will talk with the opera.
        6. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 5 February 2014 10: 26
          +8
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          Conduct an experiment, try to buy a trunk and I guarantee that you’ll be sold to an opera by 99,9%, who will record everything on video and then put you down

          This is if an honest "man" wants to buy, who does not have appropriate connections. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of unregistered weapons in the country - you can always find if you know where to look.
          1. Kushadasov
            Kushadasov 5 February 2014 12: 15
            0
            hundreds ?! Don't be shy
          2. And Us Rat
            And Us Rat 5 February 2014 12: 48
            +5
            Quote: Rakti-Kali
            There are dozens, if not hundreds, of unregistered weapons in the country

            Not "tens, if not hundreds of units", but tens, if not hundreds of thousands of units of unregistered weapons hi
            1. Rakti-kali
              Rakti-kali 6 February 2014 14: 02
              0
              Quote: And Us Rat
              and dozens, if not hundreds thousands unit

              Thanks for correcting - I missed the "thousand".
        7. Rebus
          Rebus 5 February 2014 14: 19
          +5
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          Conduct an experiment, try to buy a trunk and I guarantee that you’ll be sold to an opera by 99,9%, who will record everything on video and then put you down

          Well, you bent it. Buying weapons is easy, especially in rural areas. Of course you can’t buy machine guns, but a smoothbore is easy to buy.
        8. Cynic
          Cynic 5 February 2014 17: 06
          +3
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          Do an experiment, try to buy a trunk

          Buy something like pss?
        9. dustycat
          dustycat 5 February 2014 19: 41
          +4
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          Conduct an experiment, try to buy a trunk and I guarantee that you’ll be sold to an opera by 99,9%, who will record everything on video and then put you down


          Swipe.
          In most places this will be your reason for reporting to the Security Council.
          Better in the neighboring area.
          And if in the area there is a mechanical factory or workshop, or a zone with a mechanical workshop - then you can purchase anything without time.
          Alas, these are the realities of life.
          So for now, the law protects bandits.
          On a law-abiding stick it is much easier to get than on a legally educated lesson.
          This is also the reality of life.
        10. StolzSS
          StolzSS 5 February 2014 23: 24
          0
          Oh current no longer need this all right. If you are unable to buy a trunk yourself about inappropriately and others consider the same messy in this matter ... hi
        11. Hon
          Hon 6 February 2014 10: 30
          +1
          I know where to buy old hunting rifles without docks, two I know who has and who wants to sell. You can make a sawn-off shotgun. if a person is related to the criminal world, then for him any barrel is not a problem, even a machine gun, even a special weapon for special forces. Of course, there are many tragedies associated with the population’s weapons, but if you look at the statistics, it can be seen that in those places where the free sale of weapons was allowed, the number of crimes decreased, where prohibited were increased. In the United States, a survey among house robberies showed that the greatest fear for them was the possession of a weapon by the owner of the house.
        12. Hon
          Hon 6 February 2014 10: 30
          +1
          I know where to buy old hunting rifles without docks, two I know who has and who wants to sell. You can make a sawn-off shotgun. if a person is related to the criminal world, then for him any barrel is not a problem, even a machine gun, even a special weapon for special forces. Of course, there are many tragedies associated with the population’s weapons, but if you look at the statistics, it can be seen that in those places where the free sale of weapons was allowed, the number of crimes decreased, where prohibited were increased. In the United States, a survey among house robberies showed that the greatest fear for them was the possession of a weapon by the owner of the house.
        13. old rats
          old rats 6 February 2014 11: 57
          +3
          For those who are far from the "shadow side" of our life, the likelihood of such an outcome is great.
          And I am a retired oper, and to get a normal barrel I need two days and 15000-20000 rubles. For many "Murziks" it is even easier. Both me and they know how to do it.
          Thus, we return to the same thing: the criminal has weapons, the normal person does not.
        14. lelikas
          lelikas 7 February 2014 16: 30
          0
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          Conduct an experiment, try to buy a trunk and I guarantee that you’ll be sold to an opera by 99,9%, who will record everything on video and then put you down

          If you know at least one digger ......
          In Brother 2, this is slightly grotesque, but in fact - I'm far from this, I can offhand find at least 5 trunks. (THIS IS NOT AN OFFER !!!)
          Well, if you submit a purchase announcement on Avito or a hammer - then yes, they will tie it in an instant.
          1. uzer 13
            uzer 13 10 February 2014 18: 42
            0
            I somehow typed in a joke in the search engine "buy a gun" and the Internet connection immediately began to glitch - so many computers of controlling organizations connected to my IP address.
      2. S_mirnov
        S_mirnov 5 February 2014 09: 24
        +1
        Quote: Civil
        and now AGAINST:
        1. The police will start shooting all those who have not turned so indiscriminately.


        wink
        http://opri4nik-79.livejournal.com/337344.html
      3. military
        military 5 February 2014 09: 32
        0
        the pros are voiced ...
        cons are also ...
        and the resume? ... recourse
        1. vadimN
          vadimN 5 February 2014 10: 43
          +24
          Quote: military
          the pros are voiced ...
          cons are also ...
          and the resume? ...


          And the summary is simple: all this chatter will go on forever. No one in our country will ever allow short-handed, even though here 99% of the population will speak in favor. The authorities have resolved this issue long ago. Both the security officials and the bureaucrats are protected and, if they want, they have weapons. But they will never agree to lose their monopoly on this business.
          1. s1н7т
            s1н7т 5 February 2014 11: 39
            +10
            Quote: vadimN
            The authorities have resolved this issue a long time ago. And security officials and bureaucrats are protected, and if they want, they have weapons

            The "top" from the "national treasure" came to us - so he has a bulletproof Alaska and a pistol in a special pocket. They feel like gods in relation to others. Weapons will never be allowed to mere mortals.
          2. uzer 13
            uzer 13 10 February 2014 18: 44
            0
            You are right, this is the only correct answer to all questions on civilian weapons.
      4. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 5 February 2014 10: 20
        +7
        Quote: Civil
        and now AGAINST:
        1. The police will start shooting all those who have not turned so indiscriminately.
        2. Domestic conflicts will develop into a shootout in which random residents of our crowded cities may suffer.
        3. On the banks of lakes and rivers where gazelists and their thick-assed friends rest, they have to put up a tent instead of setting up a tent for the night.


        1. Start shooting - start to sit down. This is good - the police have no place for gopniks and other morally unstable degradants.
        2. Something I do not remember so that the weapons were going to be given to everyone indiscriminately. We do not have a wild west where everything is possible. Even the current procedure for obtaining a permit for hunting weapons is quite suitable for self-defense weapons.
        3. There is no need to go to thick-assed friends - you won’t get in the forehead from the gazelists.
      5. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 5 February 2014 10: 49
        +1
        Quote: Civil
        Who needs it will find the trunk without any problems.

        And you try, it’s only in the cinema that the trunks are without problems, but in life everything is not at all simple.
        1. dustycat
          dustycat 5 February 2014 20: 42
          +1
          Quote: chunga-changa
          And you try, it’s only in the cinema that the trunks are without problems, but in life everything is not at all simple.


          Hmm ... Don't just say it ...
          The ChTZ tractor has one spare part.
          Valve pusher.
          Good chrome vanadium steel.
          The inner hole is 9 mm.
          So everything is much simpler.
          During his service in PfP, a fighter from this, a piece of a corner and a piece of good birch, under the strict guidance of a parody of Mauser. Shot zinc cartridges. Where did not find do not ask. Places need to know. Fight and accuracy is good. In the end, nevertheless, this product was burned by electric welding.
          But recently, in the vast Ukrainian Internet, I saw a very painfully similar design with a shortened barrel.
          Oh yes. He was a fighter from Dnepropetrovsk.
          Afraid of the priest - hands do.
      6. cherkas.oe
        cherkas.oe 5 February 2014 12: 03
        +3
        [quote = Civilian] 3. The weapon gives a feeling of security, and for men it also gives moral satisfaction, therefore it is an anti-depressant. This is a satisfaction for the reflective, "non-men". Weapons are necessary for the hunter and the warrior, and both are not deprived of the right to weapons, even for protection, you can purchase weapons.
        1. V. Salama
          V. Salama 5 February 2014 16: 53
          +1
          Quote: cherkas.oe
          This is a satisfaction for the reflective, "non-men".

          But what about the "satisfaction of cultural and aesthetic needs" in weapons? It looks like you're not a hunter, however.
          Incidentally,
          It is curious that even the leader of the SR Sergey Mironov, recently a tough opponent of our organization, sent a greeting to the congress delegates.
          Mironov has an award "short-barreled" in the amount of 5 (five) units. How to explain this?
        2. The comment was deleted.
      7. Nayhas
        Nayhas 5 February 2014 13: 03
        +1
        Quote: Civil
        and now AGAINST:

        Most of the cons are based on poor police performance. I will say more. Now the weapons issued by the police are not really controlled. Many barrels are lost without any accounting, many owners of weapons are not clear where, not to mention their weapons ...
      8. wolfhunter2035
        wolfhunter2035 5 February 2014 13: 05
        0
        Yes, immediately bunkers to build and hide in them laughing
      9. Svyatoslavovich
        Svyatoslavovich 5 February 2014 19: 30
        +1
        The weapon gives a sense of security, and for men also moral satisfaction, therefore it is an anti-depressant.

        Weapons give a sense of security to LOCHAM, people with an inferiority complex and mentally ill, at least not to "muzhiks" that's for sure, but weapons should first of all fill with a sense of responsibility.
        1. V. Salama
          V. Salama 5 February 2014 19: 49
          +1
          Quote: Svyatoslavovich
          ... and weapons should first of all be filled with a sense of responsibility.
          No one has denied this evidence yet, one does not have to affirm banalities and mix round with green.
          Quote: Svyatoslavovich
          Weapons give a sense of security to suckers, people with an inferiority complex and the mentally ill ...

          You will tell your son this when you send him to the army. On this occasion, you should have read V. Shukshin. Although, can you be immortal? True, I have seen such "immortals" - in a specific situation they sing differently or make legs ...
          1. Svyatoslavovich
            Svyatoslavovich 6 February 2014 00: 56
            +1
            I think dear V. Salamathat you confuse warm with soft. We are talking about short-barreled weapons, and the army is asking here, or do you not know if you assume that everyone in the army is preoccupied with survival issues, bullets are whistling around, just have time to shoot? Have you tried to serve?
            As for the son, let it not bother you that the guy knows such a weapon, he is 12 years old and has his own pneumatics, but he will not turn it towards the person.
            About
            True, I have seen such "immortals" - in a specific situation they sing differently or make legs ...
            , you didn’t drink with me at Brudershaft, you’re not personally acquainted, and therefore do not go over permissible norms of communication.
            What exactly do you recommend reading for V. Shukshin?
            1. V. Salama
              V. Salama 6 February 2014 17: 04
              0
              Quote: Svyatoslavovich
              ... you didn’t drink with me at Brudershaft ... don’t go over permissible norms of communication.
              Weapons give a sense of security to LOCHAM, people with an inferiority complex and mentally ill, at least not "men" that's for sure ...
              Are you talking about acceptable norms of communication to whom you are broadcasting, to yourself? I don’t know who, but I definitely didn’t drink with the Brudershaft, so with a “sense of security” at the “suckers” you are more careful, offended all the security forces at once and in general, adequate people.
              Quote: Svyatoslavovich
              We are talking about short-range weapons, ...
              Again banal sprinkle and try to distort. About "security" while we are talking with you.
              Quote: Svyatoslavovich
              ... moreover, the army is asked here, or, out of ignorance, suppose that everyone in the army is preoccupied with survival issues ...
              For those who “did not try to serve in the army”, I explain: the Army sometimes conducts hostilities, and the essence of hostilities are those in dialectic unity and contradiction, two types of activity - activities aimed at destroying the enemy and activities aimed at increasing survivability. In turn, the survivability of any object is determined by both its security and the security of its elements. So, the army is very concerned about security issues, or, as you again replaced the concept of “survival issues” (again, like in katala, wherever you poke, all the cards are speckled), because “a good soldier is a soldier alive, not dead” .
              Quote: Svyatoslavovich
              As for the son, let it not bother you that the guy knows such a weapon, he is 12 years old and has his own pneumatics, but he will not turn it towards the person.

              Is it your habit to jump off the topic? Why are you doing this? Do you want to say that you are preparing him for the army, for hunters, for self-defense ...?
              Quote: Svyatoslavovich
              What exactly do you recommend reading for V. Shukshin?
              With your approach to the subject of discussion, I don’t even know if that makes sense, because his thoughts (in the 60s) about the security of the population are confirmation of deeper thoughts about the present. So, V. Shukshin:
              “He sat down and read a lot of youth newspapers. And there are many articles about hooligans and how to deal with them. Wai-wai-wai! .. Why not there! And what is “necessary”, and what “must”, and what are “obligated” is to fight. How to fight? Well, let's be sober people. I am going late at night. Towards - hooligans. I see that they are hooligans. Worse - it seems robbers. Now they will offer to remove the watch and suit. Now I will do a marathon in shorts. Well, if I'm not a timid guy? If I am ready not to bear the humiliation? If, if ... They have knives and brass knuckles. They are “supposed to." I'm not supposed to. And I do a marathon in my underpants. I won’t get on my knives with my bare hands! And I am ashamed of myself, and I hate and hate ... the police. Not because she wasn’t at that moment — she’s not a witch to be at the scene at any call — because I don’t have anything at hand. They hit me in the head so much that anyone who put a knife in his pocket is a criminal. To the bully, to the robber - expanse! He knows that all the passers-by in front of him are sheep. He is with a knife. He can. ”
              1. Svyatoslavovich
                Svyatoslavovich 6 February 2014 18: 47
                0
                You either troll me, or the skirmish itself gives you pleasure and it doesn’t matter with whom or what.
                What does the police, army and other armed employees have to do with it, have you read the article? It is about the possibility for the CIVIL population to purchase rifled short-barreled weapons, that is, pistols and revolvers.
                For a soldier a motorized rifle, a gun is useless, he would have to have more ammunition for the machine gun (I exaggerate, sometimes a gun is needed).
                Regarding your son and your question "Why am I", you wrote me a recommendation, what to say to him, I answered you. I'm not going to discuss the upbringing of my son with you.
                Thank you for the quote from Shukshin, but I would like not the name taken out of context, but the title of the work, otherwise it’s not complete.
                1. V. Salama
                  V. Salama 6 February 2014 19: 25
                  0
                  Why am I trolling you? The meaning of my statements is not clear? The point is that your statement on "security" is, to put it mildly, wrong. What does the security forces have to do with it? I tried to explain your misconceptions using this example - it did not work. The same is with the "son" - you did not understand the thought. If we are peaceful people, then weapons for us (it doesn't matter here, short-barrels are not short-barrels) are a means of defending our Motherland and our family and ourselves. There is such a didactic principle in the presentation of thoughts - "abstractness", which means "separation from the inessential." And if I do not mention the word "short-barreled", it means that for my thought it is unimportant. This means of protection - any one that should give a sense of security - is a classic. The same gas mask is not worth the price, if a fighter does not believe in it (he does not give him a sense of security), then the fighter does not know the principle of action, does not have the skill to use, does not know the combat properties of BTXV, etc.
                  "Skirmish" with you does not give me pleasure, if only for the reason that this topic is discussed repeatedly on this site, and everything is like from scratch - no development in arguments that are not only discussed a hundred times, but also classified, as exists and pseudo-scientific classification of opponents of the short-barrel. As for Shukshin's work, the context of the question you are interested in is simple - the growth of street crime in the early 60s and the writer's thought on this matter. I was not interested in where and under what name it was published - I took from the argumentation of the author of the article, by the way, in the past, an ardent opponent of short-haired people among the population.
                  1. V. Salama
                    V. Salama 6 February 2014 23: 12
                    +1
                    PS Published in the collection Shukshin V.M. Morality is the truth. M., 1979. There is also a continuation of the writer's thoughts:
                    Imagine another picture. Two go to meet one.
                    - Take off your watch!
                    Instead of a watch, a citizen takes a knife out of his pocket. Though unequal struggle, but - fair. Try to take them, this watch. Hours bite. Suppose the fight is over 0: 0. All three were taken to the police.
                    “They wanted to take my watch!”
                    - Where did you get the knife? Why?
                    - Took just in case ...
                    “You know what kind of cold weapons you wear ... We know.” We all know ...
                    How can we eradicate hooliganism, if we have nothing to fight them off ?! It turns out: who took the knife, he and pan.
                    And what if that was the case, who had the desire to take a knife and meet a belated passerby on the street, suddenly thought: “What if he has a knife too? “I guarantee: 50 percent would leave this thought. Of the remaining half - decisive - half would have taken the legs in their hands. "
                  2. Svyatoslavovich
                    Svyatoslavovich 7 February 2014 13: 07
                    0
                    So in order:
                    1. The police and other law enforcement agencies are not going to work for the possession of weapons, if this is the main reason, then this person does not belong to the authorities - in my opinion this is obvious.
                    2. About the son - we omit.
                    3. The weapon is not a means of protection, use a shield, armor, etc. for protection.
                    A weapon is a tool for killing, for which it was created, that’s what it serves.
                    4. The presence of weapons in no way guarantees against attempts on the life and property of the owner of the barrel. Knowing the performance characteristics of a pistol in your pocket and shooting skills at a shooting range from it will in no way help in the event of a targeted, unexpected attack. In other cases, usually turning on the brains of a difficult situation can be avoided.
                    5.
                    , as there is a near-scientific classification of opponents of the short-barreled
                    - have you defended your dissertation on the topic of "proponent classification"?
                    1. V. Salama
                      V. Salama 7 February 2014 15: 30
                      +1
                      Quote: Svyatoslavovich
                      So in order:

                      In order, so in order:
                      1. I have not argued that they go to security forces for the sake of possession of weapons. By the way, why do people go to serve in the traffic police, what do you think? Many people do not belong there - "in my opinion it is obvious."
                      2. I had no thoughts at all about discussing your son’s upbringing, but keep in mind that you might have to explain to him why Shukshin is a person with a heightened sense of dignity and not a “man”? And I referred to him to draw attention to this contradiction, and not because he is "indisputable authority";
                      3. "This weapon is not a means of protection ..."? Well, this is your personal opinion, refuted by both science and practice. Let’s take any country where the short-barrel is allowed - there, you all signed in an ugly manner that they purchased it for murder. So go and authorities do not guess?
                      4. There can be no guarantees, and knowledge of the device and the formation of skills appropriate to the expected situations are always assumed. The fact that "in no case will help in the case ..." is that you are too categorical. Imagine a case that would help, but nothing. Life and health are too much to risk. “In other cases, as a rule ...” - and if another case, where not “as a rule” and not run away? Yes, and not by age and not by health, many already run.
                      5. I did not defend such a dissertation, but what? The classification I have indicated as “opponents of the short-barrels” is a solid work performed by a person who thinks in psychology and is a list of their arguments arranged for reasons. A useful thing - it saves time, shows where in the discussion of this issue we walk in circles, well, there are many other educational things.
                      1. Cynic
                        Cynic 7 February 2014 15: 45
                        +1
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        1. I didn’t say that they go to the security forces for the sake of possessing weapons.

                        Reminded _
                        I do not receive a salary? And I thought they gave out a pistol, xiv and spin like a hosh!
                      2. Svyatoslavovich
                        Svyatoslavovich 9 February 2014 19: 11
                        0
                        this is a solid work, performed by a person who thinks in psychology, is a motivated list of their arguments
                        what kind of work where to read?
                      3. V. Salama
                        V. Salama 10 February 2014 14: 19
                        0
                        Quote: Svyatoslavovich
                        ... where to read?

                        On the website "Ukrainian Association of Weapon Owners" at: http://zbroya.info/ru/user/7b3fe81d6b90490a95c7de7596e9a5/
                        In "Themes" (site content) in publications on the topic "Legalization of CCW" (short-barreled rifled weapons) was an article by the author: Web admin249,3, I did not mark her name. I couldn’t find the article in the search engine - I’m a bad PC user, but she left the main page (“Popular”) - quite a while ago. Scrolling pages - there, about 300 publications, I do not have time yet. I wanted to search faster through the “Tape”, but the volume of material there is greater. So I’ll try to send the material to the PM, if I succeed, I have never sent it before. Until I figure out how ...
                  3. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
      10. The comment was deleted.
      11. uzer 13
        uzer 13 10 February 2014 18: 52
        0
        A little time will pass and you will turn into the same sick old sucker with complexes, what will you do? Old age and problems come very quickly.
  2. vladimirZ
    vladimirZ 5 February 2014 07: 21
    +26
    Deny, Deny, Deny. Stupidity is all this!
    I remember my father. He had a hunting rifle, which he just bought in a store without any license, without any passport, he did not register it anywhere. It was not necessary in the post-war years, in the 50s and 60s. He was not a professional hunter, was not a member of the "society of hunters and fishermen", he just sometimes went hunting, there are many forests in Siberia.
    And men had a lot of such weapons in those years, some even had more than one.
    And now they came up with all sorts of prohibition rules and laws, licenses and permits for ordinary people, just so as not to give weapons to the people.
    It can be seen simply that the authorities are afraid of the armed people, even if by hunting weapons or traumatic weapons of self-defense.
    But among the bandits, without any permits and licenses, military weapons, in the right amount, brazenly use them in street and road showdowns, burst into houses for old people for a penny and savings for a rainy day.
    Remember Kushchevka, other cases of a massive organized attack by bandits on entire villages and villages. Fortunately, in some cases, people had weapons and they were able to protect themselves. And how many cases of reprisals of bandits with the population, which are not reported?
    Hunting and self-defense weapons should be available for people!
    The age limit is 21 years, medical indicators of the psyche, and criminal record for certain criminal articles.
    Primary (and only) training in the use of weapons that did not serve in the army and who wanted to acquire it.
    Registration in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, I do not want to use the treacherous word police, embedded at a conscious level of the brain. BUT without the current corrupt many months of bureaucratic delays, arranged by the permission bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which practically resulted in extorting bribes.
    After all, "democracy" implies the people's right to self-defense!
    1. Kite
      Kite 5 February 2014 07: 52
      +6
      Read it! Words are not about hunting weapons. Many now have PR, but didn’t have one like your father. The chatter is again about the so-called short barrel i.e. about pistols and their constant wearing.
      1. sledgehammer102
        sledgehammer102 5 February 2014 08: 23
        +3
        Quote: vladimirZ
        After all, "democracy" implies the people's right to self-defense!


        A short trunk does not mean at all that the number of crimes will radically change. It would be interesting to look at the United States and the number of murders per capita now. And yes, all studies on this subject are often paid for by very specific weapons campaigns in the United States.

        1) The gun must not be carried along the street - fact
        2) And at home you can always have a gun for self-defense
        3) Now far from 90, when it was possible to run into a bullet on every corner.
        1. Geisenberg
          Geisenberg 5 February 2014 10: 41
          +4
          Quote: sledgehammer102
          Quote: vladimirZ
          After all, "democracy" implies the people's right to self-defense!


          A short trunk does not mean at all that the number of crimes will radically change. It would be interesting to look at the United States and the number of murders per capita now. And yes, all studies on this subject are often paid for by very specific weapons campaigns in the United States.

          1) The gun must not be carried along the street - fact
          2) And at home you can always have a gun for self-defense
          3) Now far from 90, when it was possible to run into a bullet on every corner.


          Exactly what it means. The bandit taking advantage of his main advantage in committing robbery knows that the flimsy grandfather, or a girl, will not be able to provide decent resistance. Another thing is when each seemingly defenseless citizen in his pocket may have a .410 caliber ... I’d look at that gopnik.

          Regarding the USA. The number of murders there is growing due to the completely idiotic domestic policy that created the economic crisis and unemployment.

          1. Again, with regard to the United States, all depends on the law of a particular state. For example, where there is a ban on hidden wearing, in states where possession is not prohibited, you can store weapons in a car, for example.
          2. That is, I have to store in the house an almost useless thing which I will not have time to use if I lock it? Why do I need a gun at home if I carry a gun?
          3. I agree. Now is not the 90s. Now it’s not fashionable to kill, just cripple for the sake of entertainment and then live as you can.
          1. Slavapom
            Slavapom 5 February 2014 11: 30
            +6
            You know, having a weapon, in this case a short barrel, and being able to use it are two very different things, and this is not unfounded, but from personal experience.
            1. sledgehammer102
              sledgehammer102 5 February 2014 12: 03
              +1
              Quote: Geisenberg
              Exactly what it means. The bandit taking advantage of his main advantage in committing robbery knows that the flimsy grandfather, or a girl, will not be able to provide decent resistance. Another thing is when each seemingly defenseless citizen in his pocket may have a .410 caliber ... I’d look at that gopnik.


              Grandfather can have an injury or a gas spray, like any other person. Well, gopoty with pistols on the streets has long been gone, and you will not frighten OPG with any gun.

              We correctly noted above that in Russia there are a lot of killings in the household, so let's add a gun to this kitchen knife
              1. revnagan
                revnagan 5 February 2014 12: 45
                +5
                Quote: sledgehammer102
                gopoty with pistols on the streets for a long time no

                This is a plus, of course. But the quantity levels out the quality. That is, the numerical superiority and the presence of objects causing physical damage (up to murder) by means of muscular strength in the hands of the gopots reduce this plus to naught. And deny law-abiding citizens the right to defend their honor and dignity when help legal firearms only on the grounds that the gopots, they say, don't have a pistol ... well, it's somehow stupid. I think that everyone has the right to present a blatota with an unpleasant surprise in the form of a pointed barrel that will look at them knuckle-duster bats with obvious disapproval. And will nullify the numerical superiority of the attackers. But the legislative norm on the limits of necessary self-defense must be changed, or completely abolished. A person who commits robbery, bandit and other unlawful actions that is a threat to citizens and their property must automatically be "outlawed" with all the ensuing consequences. And treat him like a mad dog. And bo- "he was the first to start." Well, "Saiga" or "SKS" will not carry with you around the city, and there will be no surprise for the gopniks. One factor of surprise is worth a lot. Plus the likelihood that an armed rebuff may follow from the rear, and from either side, will sober up the "adventurers" to their "w".
              2. Geisenberg
                Geisenberg 5 February 2014 20: 47
                +4
                Quote: sledgehammer102
                Grandfather can have an injury or a gas spray, like any other person. Well, gopoty with pistols on the streets has long been gone, and you will not frighten OPG with any gun.


                Grandfather with a spray can dead body automatically. They kill annoyances - they just stumble. Injury at a distance of 2-3 meters, in a skilled hand is no worse than a short-bore. Do not pile in warm and soft. Regarding the organized crime group - why are they completely fearless chtoli ?? or immortals and do not understand how they lie in a coffin? They all understand, and they won’t climb under bullets, and they don’t usually bother grandfathers of organized crime groups ... well, as far as I know, maybe that has changed and gangsters are now hunting for detached elderly people?

                Quote: sledgehammer102
                We correctly noted above that in Russia there are a lot of killings in the household, so let's add a gun to this kitchen knife


                Let us immediately attract a male for the presence of a male sexual organ for rape ... surely there will be.
              3. dustycat
                dustycat 5 February 2014 21: 04
                +2
                Quote: sledgehammer102
                NU and gopoty with pistols on the streets have not been

                Well, yes ... She now drives cars with "baseball" bats and just lets them in business. For fun.
                Well, I have a nail clipper conveniently perched under the door.
                So it is with me. With my hand-to-hand experience.
                But there are others.
                So it will be in their favor.
                And what will be the corpses in the first place - so bad genes must be sorted out somehow.
                Divorced a lot of them.
                There will be indecent losses. With a tendency to decrease.
                So they are now in the same volume. No downward trend.
        2. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 5 February 2014 12: 42
          +6
          Quote: sledgehammer102
          A short trunk does not mean at all that the number of crimes will radically change

          You like statistics, and it just says that in ALL countries of the world where weapons were allowed, crime was markedly reduced. Let's be honest, because it is our presence of nuclear weapons that is the strongest demotivator for potential aggressors. They know that they can run into, so they don’t climb. The same with weapons. And injuries shoot so often because the absolute majority, both the shooter and the victim, are perceived as a continuation of the fist, i.e. not a lethal weapon. There will be a real barrel, there will be real, conscious responsibility for its use. There is a video in the internet where one man with an ax reassured three rednecks with bits in one word. It was the presence of an ax that saved him from getting to the hospital. I have an ax in my car, but I know that this is not a bit, I really will kill them with one blow, so it lies for an emergency. If there was a bat, I would get it more than once. hi
          1. sledgehammer102
            sledgehammer102 5 February 2014 19: 56
            0
            Quote: revnagan
            That is, the numerical superiority and the presence of objects that inflict physical damage (up to killing) through muscular strength in the hands of the gopot bring this plus to nothing


            To do this, there is a traumatic and gas spray.

            Quote: Ingvar 72
            You like statistics, and it just says that in ALL countries of the world where weapons were allowed, crime was markedly reduced.

            It would be interesting to see a schedule of killings in these countries before and after the adoption of laws. I wrote above that in the USA such polls or studies are ordered by arms companies, and the results of which they lobby for their interests.

            In short, the statistics on murders will clarify everything here, there is a radical decrease in this indicator - there is an effect, no - there is no effect.
    2. domokl
      domokl 5 February 2014 08: 50
      +16
      Quote: vladimirZ
      And men had a lot of such weapons in those years, some even had more than one.

      Would you like to say that now he is not there? Yes, as much as you like in any Siberian village. A hunting rifle and sn weapons are not considered ... a common thing, get that thread ... How to go fishing or mushrooms.
      I repeat, the main thing is not the availability of weapons but the law on necessary self-defense. More precisely, on its limits. A person should be able not only to stop, but to destroy the criminal without looking at the prosecutor.
    3. cherkas.oe
      cherkas.oe 5 February 2014 12: 08
      +5
      Quote: vladimirZ
      Age limit 21 years,

      In the army since 18, and permission to hunt from the 21st, normally you get it. Nonsense.
    4. cherkas.oe
      cherkas.oe 5 February 2014 12: 19
      +2
      Quote: vladimirZ
      I remember my father. He had a hunting rifle, which he simply bought in a store without any license, without any passport, and did not register him anywhere.

      Well, YOU compared our fathers who came from the war and knew the cost of life and the modern people who grew up on cartoons, and they will buy weapons, and then I'll see how you go to the forest for mushrooms. Only on an armored personnel carrier is not otherwise.
  3. jjj
    jjj 5 February 2014 08: 39
    +8
    As noted the other day by one of my colleagues, the discussion about the need for weapons was not long in coming. In the mid-seventies of the last century, in the border zone with China, we had the right to use weapons of destruction at our own discretion. There was no need to ask anyone for "good" for this. There were only two prohibitions established by the rules. Moreover, if a breakthrough was made towards the border, and you did not kill the violator, then the prison would cry for you. Along the stem we were trained to the level of the Marksmen. And when someone had to use a weapon, they always hit, and the guys were awarded.
    And now I imagine myself with a gun on the street. And I clearly understand that the emerging conflict situation can lead to application. And I am afraid that this application will prove fatal. Including for myself. No, let the weapons remain in the hands of professionals. But if the state allows the wearing and use of the short barrel, then you have to buy it. In war, as in war
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 5 February 2014 10: 48
      +4
      Quote: jjj
      And now I imagine myself with a gun on the street. And I clearly understand that the emerging conflict situation can lead to application. And I am afraid that this application will prove fatal. Including for myself. No, let the weapons remain in the hands of professionals. But if the state allows the wearing and use of the short barrel, then you have to buy it. In war, as in war


      No need to be pissing baby. Life is given once. It is not for nothing that the Lord rewarded a person with brain and hands in addition. This is done at least in order to give people the opportunity to save their lives. A reliable tool and a strong knowledge of the law guarantees a long and happy life in the wild.
      1. Navy7981
        Navy7981 5 February 2014 15: 58
        +3
        Everything is right! In the end, one in a thousand is better than no chance.
  4. DimychDV
    DimychDV 5 February 2014 09: 49
    +1
    And with what then will you order your right to defend if you are not allowed into the VIP-toilet on the plane ???
    And how to arm those liberals who have already learned to shout: "I have a bunch of shares, well, where is my right ???".

    They have few mink coats, they want to steer. But Putin, having released Khodorkovsky, reminded them: either the headstock or the steering wheel ...
  5. Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 5 February 2014 10: 16
    +6
    Quote: mirag2
    I didn't understand something - is this an attempt to draw attention to the new "law on weapons"?
    Rather, the need to change the old?
    Nonsense - I love weapons very much, but I would never agree that gunshots would be sold to the public, except for hunters.


    Something you are somehow dull. This article once again raises the question that a citizen should have the right to protect his life. It’s very good that nothing depends on your voice. Remember the weapon the next time you are pressed in the gateway and put on knives.
  6. Max_Bauder
    Max_Bauder 5 February 2014 11: 15
    +2
    In general, if you look for the roots of the weapon was created to kill. Hunting is also a murder, but an animal. People hunted to eat it normally. Then they directed weapons against their own homosapiens, and so the origin of the war began. So let's take into account weapons - for killing. Then I want to immediately cut off the root of all attempts to justify sporting hunting and other passion for weapons, it comes from an ancient instinct, no one canceled gene memory.

    As for modern society, Russia, say, weapons are harmful to society, I’ll explain, if you legalize them, then everyone who buys will endanger themselves and others. everyone who has lost their nerves will shoot at his wife, at his neighbors, at the boss, at anyone who offends you, even on the roads when you were cut, the verbal skirmish will go not into a fight but into a shooting range where crazy bullets can fly past those passing by.

    I confess I also had the thought of shooting someone when I was very, very angry. But then you come to your senses and calm down. I often forgot to add children in America when they find their father’s gun at home playing war games, they can also shoot themselves and others, so you still need to be able to hide, preferably in a safe with a lock.

    I used to be ashamed of running away, then I grew up, my own worldview appeared and I realized that it's okay to run if you can save someone, like in the movie "Fearless" with Jet Li. There the fighter will lose so as not to inflict a fatal injury on the opponent. The same thing, I'd rather run away than shoot some kind of guarded, how to live with this later? all the more imprisoned, life is smar. Another thing in a war, or to shoot a murderer to save the lives of civilians, there definitely would not hesitate. The main thing is to always know what your weapon is for and have a goal. Ideally unprepared ideologically it is better not to approach the weapon.

    Now, as for the ability to control weapons, I think every man MUST be able to shoot, it is desirable that the army does not spare money for fire training, for the duration of the training, for cartridges, so that in the event of war or battle, every soldier does not panic, is able and hits the target at least half of the "horn" clip. Then the cases of cross-fire or accidental shooting during cleaning will no longer appear. That is, a fighter should easily control a weapon like a pen to write letters. No one will stick a pen in his eye, also with a weapon.

    And in peacetime it is better for everyone to go without weapons, but who know how to use them if necessary. smile
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 5 February 2014 11: 56
      +1
      Quote: Max_Bauder
      In general, if you look for the roots of the weapon was created to kill

      The moose has horns. This is the answer to wolf teeth.
      1. saygon66
        saygon66 5 February 2014 16: 38
        +6
        - You are welcome! Delete this comment! And then, after all, the authorities will recommend to citizens that they BUILD HORNS! Look like an elk - even wolves off a gun without a gun! wassat
        1. Geisenberg
          Geisenberg 5 February 2014 20: 54
          +2
          Quote: saygon66
          - You are welcome! Delete this comment! And then, after all, the authorities will recommend to citizens that they BUILD HORNS! Look like an elk - even wolves off a gun without a gun! wassat


          I agree !!! Deer (elk) weapons - nini !!
      2. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 5 February 2014 20: 53
        +1
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        Quote: Max_Bauder
        In general, if you look for the roots of the weapon was created to kill

        The moose has horns. This is the answer to wolf teeth.


        Inclined to disagree. Horns apparently by laughing that the wife is cheating, and against the wolf long legs and an inexhaustible supply of physical strength ...
    2. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 5 February 2014 20: 52
      +2
      Quote: Max_Bauder
      In general, if you look for the roots of the weapon was created to kill. Hunting too


      The weapon is primarily created as a tool. It’s not the weapon that kills, but the hand guiding it. In general, if we talk about the roots ... The roots lie in the nature of man. People are all different, and weapons equalize their chances. All talk about what constitutes a murder has long been discussed and the results are recorded in the criminal code. This is the point.
      1. StolzSS
        StolzSS 5 February 2014 23: 50
        +1
        As for the hand, I wouldn’t be so sure because I had to, and to be honest, the reflex works there and the brain switches to another mode ... there both legs and back and hands all come together all at once and very quickly happens then you delve deeper into why and how did it very this skill is an interesting phenomenon, but it is not accessible to everyone ... In general, a weapon should be available to someone who wants to wear and use it as a last resort, but I would not expect a quick positive effect from its introduction in the people ... at first there will be culling of all kinds of sheep such as my neighbor and similar filthy alc our ... it will take 10 years before everything settles down and the citizens learn to deal with the weapons of constant wear responsibly ... it will be easier for me, and my mother will not even notice, she just won’t pick it up ... but the gopniks immediately rush to buy and shoot at each other, but in a year it will subside because in Chechnya and now everyone has the bagpipes and they don’t make a big fuss ... so of course you need to write a new law but you don’t have to hurry too much and the short barrel should definitely not be Colt American ... Enough and revolvers 6 charging 9 mm to no citizens automatic pistols outdoors shooting ranges and shooting ranges. Here is my opinion if someone does not agree, then give substantive arguments and leave your emotions hi
  7. revnagan
    revnagan 5 February 2014 16: 56
    0
    Quote: mirag2
    injuries need to be banned - it's still a weapon designed for both defense and attack

    Now this is already interesting, but by what criteria do you divide weapons into "for attack" and "for defense"? I emphasize - weapons, not special means. By the way, an injury, a rubber fire is not a weapon, but a device for shooting non-lethal ammunition, those. special means.
  8. Vlaleks48
    Vlaleks48 7 February 2014 18: 59
    0
    Regarding injuries, dear, I completely agree with you! But for the rest, you just forget that the culture of owning weapons, any barrel smooth or rifled, was always in the honor of a free people, not a slave!
  9. Free Island
    Free Island 11 February 2014 19: 51
    +1
    Dear, in our Sakhalin a couple of days ago, in a cathedral, a drunken ok shot parishioners. He killed two (a nun and a parishioner who covered the rest with himself) and wounded six. So that’s what I mean ... oh, yes .. ok this employee of one local security company. They shot people out of a service pump-action shotgun ... one full-time correspondent on Mile.sru, silently after shooting at a Moscow school, supported all-Russian hysteria and screamed at the Sakhalin incident that it was necessary to disarm people ... that is, he didn’t even figure out that the shotgun was service. ..we will move on .. in 1997, when I was finishing school, one half-witted man brought his father’s gun with him .. dad’s cop, service barrel ... he also almost shot people ... does it mean that cops should also be prohibited from weapons ??? But what about the cop, which in the supermarket not so long ago, people crumble ???? So what do we have in the end - the cops shoot people, leave them weapons .... dumb CHOPs shoot people - leave them weapons .... Bandos have trunks - leave them weapons (and even for the money we make a legal license for money) and only ordinary citizens continue and continue to disarm ... where is the logic ??? I will say what the government’s benefit is in the prohibitions on short-barrels - they have kickbacks from black markets. As soon as combat is legalized, prices will fall at times, and officials covering the Czech Republic with arms will simply lose a penny
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 11 February 2014 20: 51
      0
      Quote: Free Island
      As soon as combat is legalized, prices will fall at times, and officials covering the Czech Republic with arms will simply lose a penny

      Are you seriously ?
      Who’s going to deal with the legal trunk ?!
      C left trunks are caught sooner or later, but here !!! With the same success, you can offer to leave business cards!
      Here the matter is completely different. A man with and without arms is two completely different people. Completely different. Even if he is a weapon.
  • siberalt
    siberalt 5 February 2014 06: 37
    +14
    Since when, according to the author, the topic of personal short-barreled firearms for citizens has become one of the burning ones. Whoever needs it, let him "tremble". Maybe the arms dealer lobbyists? Yes, those who benefit from the whipping up of a general atmosphere of fear in cities and villages. First, gas cartridges went on sale, then injuries. And what, from this, the streets became calmer? Yes, not at all. But they began to shoot at each other all the time for any reason. To the delight of journalists.
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 5 February 2014 07: 36
      +10
      Yes, for those who benefit from building a general atmosphere of fear — for proponents of disarmament, and because the people cannot defend themselves, they also do not become calmer on the street — so this is a stupid argument and it does not convince anyone.
      And in general, if there was a question of self-defense in the right way, the question of arming the population would never have arisen.
      If a person attacks his victim that is not dangerous for him, then the victim must and has the right to defend himself without thinking about the consequences.
      Now, no one else is sure that causing harm to the attacker in a quick battle (when there is no time to measure the possible damage to the attacker) this will not end with a prison term for the defender.
      1. Walk
        Walk 5 February 2014 08: 19
        +19
        I totally agree. First, you need to resolve the issue of permission for self-defense, and only then talk about wearing a short barrel. Why would I, a law-abiding citizen, need a weapon if I cannot use it according to the law. But some scumbag who received permission for a bribe, or the son of "tough" parents, will swing the barrel to the right and to the left.
        1. Kirzhak
          Kirzhak 5 February 2014 10: 00
          +3
          But some scumbag who received permission for a bribe, or the son of "tough" parents, will swing the barrel to the right and to the left.

          Absolutely with you! We do not have a culture of possessing such weapons in Russia. And we will not treat it like, say, a mobile phone, applying it only when necessary.
          1. rereture
            rereture 5 February 2014 23: 45
            +1
            And if we do not allow it, then how will we build a culture?
          2. uzer 13
            uzer 13 10 February 2014 19: 07
            0
            You do not have the authority to express the opinion of all of Russia. If you do not have a culture of handling weapons, this does not mean that no one has such a culture.
      2. PSih2097
        PSih2097 5 February 2014 08: 28
        +7
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        If a person attacks his victim that is not dangerous for him, then the victim must and has the right to defend himself without thinking about the consequences.

        it follows that we must first adjust the legislation, in particular, articles on self-defense in the Criminal Code and the law on private property, and only then talk about permission to carry a short barrel, and well, they will allow it, and so ...
        Firstly, the price for it will most likely be the same as with the state defense order (under 2 eureka and this is for a clean trunk, everything else is for a fee)
        Secondly, only domestic models of the defense industry will be on sale (so you can forget about High Power or M1911, as well as about the same GSh18, APS, SR1)
        And thirdly, in a couple of weeks, 80 percent of owners will start to store it at home, because dragging a kilogram under your arm, in a purse (in your purse) or on a belt every day is not an ice.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. Alez
      Alez 5 February 2014 07: 51
      +9
      To allow the short-barrels, it is also necessary to introduce toughening in the Criminal Code, if you used hooligan motives for the purpose of attack, you will receive a real term without any conditions, with the deprivation of the right to bear arms for life. Poorly stored, an outsider took advantage of your weapons, get a term.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 5 February 2014 08: 26
        +4
        And how do you prove that you used weapons in the wasteland against 5 hooligans, if you failed only one of them? Are there any witnesses left?
        1. ArhipenkoAndrey
          ArhipenkoAndrey 5 February 2014 09: 23
          +9
          No way, in our judicial and law enforcement system the bandit is initially right and has more rights and fewer responsibilities than a law-abiding citizen. If you are beaten, robbed, raped - you practically have no right to resist, especially if you are stronger than a gangster and God forbid hurt him, a gangster by status can walk with any weapon, which is strictly forbidden to an ordinary citizen (a friend was given 2 years for a penknife, law enforcement officers have proved the possibility of inflicting severe bodily harm on them) but in fact the bandit who beat the woman get a year - a paradox - the state is afraid of its citizens.
        2. military
          military 5 February 2014 09: 47
          +2
          Quote: alicante11
          And how do you prove that you used weapons in the wasteland against 5 hooligans, if you failed only one of them? Are there any witnesses left?

          No way! ... or train more often ... or bring down witnesses ... will pass for hooligans ... wink laughing
        3. Slavapom
          Slavapom 5 February 2014 11: 39
          +2
          as there were no witnesses left, there were as many as four hooligans who would say in one holo that you had attacked such peaceful people and killed one of them
    3. alebor
      alebor 5 February 2014 10: 22
      -2
      Whatever arguments the supporters of the resolution of short-range weapons bring, but statistics, as they say, are stubborn. In the United States, according to statistics, 30000 people die from firearms per year. Supporters of weapons want us to become like this? So that in our country, like in the USA, any abnormal person regularly breaks into a school or university and opens fire there? A few days ago, and we had a similar case, but we have this exception, and in the USA it is a usual, regularly recurring phenomenon. And why? Because in the USA it is much easier to acquire weapons. Peaceful Finland comes first in Western Europe in killings. She is on the 3 place in the world (after the United States and Yemen) in terms of the number of weapons per capita. The result, as they say, is obvious.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 5 February 2014 10: 50
      +2
      Quote: siberalt
      Since when, according to the author, the topic of personal short-barreled firearms for citizens has become one of the burning. Whoever needs it, let him "tremble". Can


      Since there was a need to fight for survival.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • KBACYPA
    KBACYPA 5 February 2014 06: 38
    +6
    I am against absolutely free carrying weapons. But limited free is another question. Wearing a short barrel should be limited to obtaining certificates. Like a car. Any competent, adult citizen can, having unlearned and passed the exam, carry a weapon with him. And the paragraph on exceeding the limits of necessary defense from the Criminal Code is removed to hell.
    1. Kite
      Kite 5 February 2014 07: 57
      +9
      In the summer, on a rainy day, he sat in the country and watched various programs on Tricolor. I remember one movie trip to New Guinea, namely, the aboriginal traveler questioned. He asked: “Are there wars between tribes?” Answer: “Yes, there has recently been a big war over hunting territories. They (another tribe) killed ours - 16, and we of them - 10! ” (!!!)
      The Aborigines “fought” with spears, bows and wicker shields, they don’t have firearms yet, fortunately for them! They are in no hurry to go the path that we have long been behind, we have already invented monstrous weapons, and even the pestle in the hands of some may cause not fear, but a grin of vis-a-vis. There has long been a prepared response to such a primitive weapon. But it’s still better to go in everyday life without a bulletproof vest, helmet and a pair of army pistols of killer caliber, capable of breaking through the armor, and in addition to have a couple of stylet in the sleeves, in case of a collision at a very close range.
      If now you don’t wear an armored suit, neglecting the probability of meeting an armed gopnik / redneck / durik, would you like to increase the likelihood of such a meeting in the near future? So, there is no practical way to avoid this issue, as an alternative interpretation of the issue of the emergence of a civilian short-barrel. Tight control? And he, tight control, will make the resolution of the short-barrel simply a declaration that cannot be realized in reality. No one, except the most trusted and trusted, who have confirmed their reliability during long-term service in the security forces, will not receive permission to the COP. And now they have no such right ?! And you are fighting for the solution of this issue, for arming the secret services? (hmm) Not for that? Well, then save up money on your armored suit, pump up your muscles so that you can run in such a suit in the evenings. And learn to keep a smile on your face, even if you have a terribly sore head or stomach! Your frown can provoke an oncoming passerby to bring his cop into a fighting position.
      (We won’t talk about bandits, amateurs can’t fight planned attacks and are dangerous for completely outsiders. To protect your home, buy at least some double-barreled shotgun or Saigu now if the paranoia attack is not registered and does not prevent obtaining permission)
      And the natives will be surprised: “In, the northern savages, wet each other with hundreds and thousands! Not a day without a big war! ”
      1. rereture
        rereture 5 February 2014 08: 23
        0
        And why did you decide that with every crooked look they would shoot? From the crooked looks or something they climb into the fray?
        Or do you think that you will have a short barrel to the left and to the right?

        I would not trust such a "professional" as our policemen. Recently, the police have discredited themselves, the Caucasians beat the policeman in front of his colleagues, then the schoolboy kills the policeman.
        1. military
          military 5 February 2014 09: 58
          +3
          Quote: rereture
          Recently, the police have discredited themselves, either the kazkaz residents of the policeman beat him before his eyes, or the schoolboy kills the policeman.

          what do they need to patrol by platoon? ... with "Kalash" at the ready? ... and everyone they meet - face into the asphalt ... preventively ... to constantly demonstrate their professional suitability ... maybe, after all, it's not just not so much in the police as in the "legal field" imposed on us and its actual incapacity? ... request
          1. rereture
            rereture 5 February 2014 16: 04
            +1
            Everyone has a gun hanging on their belts, a baton, too, when the Caucasians beat a policeman, his comrades just watched.
            Yesterday, a school student who went off killed a policeman, they passed through a turnstile and a security guard, didn’t he tell the police that there was a teenager with weapons? How did they even go without vests. Yes, you look at these policemen louder at every third belly beer. Thanks of course, but I do not trust them with my safety.
        2. Kite
          Kite 5 February 2014 10: 49
          +2
          Quote: rereture
          And why did you decide that at every crooked look will shoot?

          “Where exactly did I write this?” Gloomy oncoming passerby in the alley can provoke, for example, you to bring the COP in a fighting position. And how will he react to such your behavior if he has an Auger CS?
          Quote: rereture
          From the crooked looks or something they climb into the fray?

          Yes, often the conflict grows from the little things and comes to such an extent that the parties completely cease to control themselves. Often after a fight, a strong friendship begins.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. rereture
            rereture 5 February 2014 14: 57
            +1
            A frown on a person’s head will not provoke a frown, you greatly exaggerate your fears, if you are afraid that the slightest look will provoke you, then do not buy.

            In general, a person with a cop will try not to bring the showdown to the use of a cop.
            1. Kite
              Kite 5 February 2014 15: 28
              +2
              Quote: rereture
              A healthy person on the head, a frown does not provoke

              - I’ll add: a healthy person will not shoot first at the head, but may not even be the second! Therefore, the cop in his armpit, but under his coat, does not add joy.
              1. rereture
                rereture 5 February 2014 15: 36
                0
                Why do you think that direct duels will be on the streets?

                It is not necessary to get into the criminal to stop the attack, sometimes a shot in the air is enough to cool the attacker's ardor, and if you shoot in his direction, notice not in him but in his direction, then you can cause some confusion.
                1. Kite
                  Kite 5 February 2014 16: 09
                  +2
                  Quote: rereture
                  Why do you think that direct duels will be on the streets?

                  - But what do you attribute all your thoughts to me? I did not say a word about, relatively, honest fights. If, for example, my barrel is already aimed at you, then it will be too late for you to remember where your gun is and whether it is loaded, moreover, you would not advise making abrupt movements. Is this a duel?
                  Calm down. You can’t be afraid of me, I also go fishing to remote places without weapons.
                  1. rereture
                    rereture 5 February 2014 16: 16
                    0
                    I didn’t mean those duels like those of the noble dons, namely shooting at each other.

                    If the barrel had been pointed at me, I would not have curled myself and would have tried to fulfill the requirements of the criminal, that is, I gave all the valuables, except the cop.

                    Personally, I go fishing and to remote places with a knife, a blade of centimeters 18. For example, once I met a young wolf near the village, it was good that he had no interest in me.
                    1. alone
                      alone 5 February 2014 19: 28
                      +1
                      As a rule, large-scale armament of citizens never promises anything good.
                      1. rereture
                        rereture 5 February 2014 19: 40
                        +1
                        And no one plans to arm everyone without exception.
                        Just allow the sale, purchase, and use of cop.
                        Just like with a car.

                        Who needs it - they’ll buy it.
                        If someone is against it, let him not buy it.

                        In general, weapons discipline.
                      2. Cynic
                        Cynic 5 February 2014 20: 14
                        +2
                        Quote: lonely
                        As a rule, large-scale armament of citizens never promises anything good.

                        The rule?
                        And where does it work and, most importantly, for whom?
  • Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov 5 February 2014 06: 40
    +8
    The police must carry out their work, and laws comply with the requirements of the time. Remembering the times of the USSR, it still worked fine, because it was debugged.
    And if we distribute weapons to the population, subject to the inaction of law enforcement agencies, then we get the westernization of the country.
    And not only in schools every day there will be shooting, nor can you go outside ...
    So, a decent standard of living plus strict enforcement of the law is what you need, but not a weapon.
    1. rereture
      rereture 5 February 2014 08: 04
      +6
      Now it’s full of shotguns and rifles, a lot of shooting from them? How many people have been killed by their legal owners?

      In schools, shooting. Rave.
      Let's ban personal cars, there will only be public transport.
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 5 February 2014 08: 14
        +4
        Quote: rereture
        Now it’s full of shotguns and rifles, a lot of shooting from them? How many people have been killed by their legal owners?

        Very much, open the Internet and be surprised how much.
        1. rereture
          rereture 5 February 2014 08: 46
          0
          So give links, please, the Internet is big, there is a lot of information, the information is different, there is true and there is false. Not everything that is written on the Internet is true.

          So please a reference to the statistics of how many people were killed by the legal owners of weapons.
          1. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov 5 February 2014 10: 19
            +1
            Quote: rereture
            So give links, please, the Internet is big,

            And laziness itself? There are hundreds of links, then one has drunk, then the second has gone crazy.
            21 hours ago - Today, on February 3, the 32-year-old Berdchanin will be charged with a suspect in the murder of a friend from a gun.
            In Tver, a man killed an entrepreneur from a hunting rifleIn Kalmykia, uncle killed his nephew with a hunting rifle
            In Transbaikalia, a man killed four people from a hunting
            Nibaraite was killed from a carbine, there is also a bunch.
            1. rereture
              rereture 5 February 2014 11: 10
              +3
              Scored, found only the first news, and the last.

              Type in the search for traffic accident news, you will see that cars are much more dangerous.

              Do not want to - do not buy.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 5 February 2014 08: 29
        0
        shotguns and rifles,


        Oil of oil and oil of oil.
        1. rereture
          rereture 5 February 2014 08: 42
          +2
          let's cling to words, adults and behave like children.
  • Sanamana
    Sanamana 5 February 2014 06: 42
    +10
    my personal opinion is that short-barrels should be resolved, with proper control over issuance, storage, and so on. But I cannot agree with the author that all those who are against those "slaves" and the frightened people. There is just little information on this topic. People see only the negative sides, disseminated by the media. I have never thought and will not think that our people are dumber, drunker, dumber than the Balts, Amers, Maldavans and others.
    1. Walk
      Walk 5 February 2014 08: 33
      +10
      Sense of such permission? Here you go with an AUTHORIZED COP, and a gang of 5-6 people attacks you, but with bats, without a firearm. So you can’t shoot under current law, because your response exceeds the threat. You’ll be imprisoned if you shoot. And yet, God forbid, this will be Caucasians, and they will add a second article for inciting ethnic hatred. And you won’t prove anything, because there are many of them, and everyone you haven’t shot will already be witnesses. And then only option is to not leave witnesses. Therefore, it is necessary to first resolve the issue with the article on the necessary self-defense.
      1. denozavr
        denozavr 5 February 2014 08: 59
        +5
        And if you consider the situation like this: you are traveling (walking) with children, your wife, and 5-6 people with bats attack you, will you think about the consequences of using ks? I think that the consequences here should be thought of the least ... The fact that first you need to solve the issue with the article on the necessary self-defense is certainly correct, but it seems to me that it is not solved for the reason that often (probably in 95% of cases) the participants conflicts with the use of weapons - either law enforcement officials or deputies or their children. That is, they are thus trying to protect themselves from the use of weapons against them, in every possible way putting harnesses on ordinary citizens, "advising" not to use it in principle .... I myself have a weapon, I studied at courses and passed exams, so here is an example of absurdity: before using weapons, you must shout the phrase: "Stop, I will use the weapon." If you suddenly said something else (wait, I’ll shoot, for example, this is already regarded not as a warning about the readiness to use weapons, but as a THREAT, or didn’t say anything at all), then you are already guilty a priori, regardless of other circumstances of the conflict ... In this case, there must be witnesses, video confirming your actions ...
        1. Walk
          Walk 5 February 2014 09: 10
          +1
          I agree that there may be times when the law will not give a damn. But in this case, who is stopping you from walking with weapons now? The punishment will be the same regardless of the availability of permission. The conversation is not about the need to carry weapons, but about the legislative framework for this. Therefore, we must start with the law on self-defense, and only then (or in parallel) create a law on weapons.
      2. military
        military 5 February 2014 10: 09
        +1
        well, yes ... you are walking through a vacant lot with a PERMITTED COP ... the mood is nasty ... and towards you - a bunch of baseball players after training ... one elbows you ... after a short verbal skirmish, you grab your COP and "sort out" the situation ... and you tell the police who drove up alongside that these are not athletes, but bandits ... they encroached on your life ...
        1. rereture
          rereture 5 February 2014 14: 59
          0
          Is baseball popular here? Or you judge all by yourself.
      3. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 5 February 2014 12: 10
        +3
        Quote: Walk
        Here you go with an AUTHORIZED COP, and a gang of 5-6 people attacks you, but with bats, without a gun

        According to even today's Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, this is an attack committed by a group of people using weapons and life-threatening.
        The use of weapons in this case is legitimate, you can and should shoot, and preferably even before you make a chop.
        Most importantly, there is a chance to stay alive, and what will happen then is secondary.
        It is better to give evidence in mentovka to the living than to be dead, fearing that he could kindle some kind of discord there and exceed something.
        Let those who are with bits and preferably everything be dead.
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 5 February 2014 13: 05
          +1
          I want to add a film to the topic, there are golden words in the off-screen text that A. Belyavsky reads:
      4. I do not care
        I do not care 5 February 2014 20: 58
        +1
        I’ll sit better, but I won’t stay crippled, or God forbid the child or wife will suffer
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 5 February 2014 21: 52
          0
          Glad to hear the voice of a normal person.
  • Duke
    Duke 5 February 2014 06: 44
    +6
    I didn’t understand from the article where is the creative class and weapons?
    1. PPL
      PPL 5 February 2014 08: 27
      +11
      Well, how about, for example, artists, photographers, bloggers, etc. engaged in “intellectual work” simply need weapons ... laughing
      It’s easier to create with him ...
      1. Terrible ensign
        Terrible ensign 5 February 2014 15: 04
        +3
        That's it ... I remembered here:
        ***
        There is more in common between paints and pistols than I previously thought. Both paints and pistols inspire owners to think about strange, and possibly wonderful things that can be done with their help.
        © Kurt Vonnegut
  • equity
    equity 5 February 2014 06: 49
    +4
    Her, it is impossible to permit the carrying of weapons, from her there will be more harm than good, this is for sure!
  • Per se.
    Per se. 5 February 2014 06: 55
    +12
    Let's finally define the difference between the concepts of what is the right to self-defense and what is the right to shoot to kill with military weapons. Is it one and the same? No, not the same thing. Why would a stranger, a left-handed uncle, on legal grounds be able to decide whether you live or not, just because he got a military weapon and it seemed to him that he was in danger? Do not just imagine yourself in a cool role - "Did you tell me that ?!", effectively pulling out the barrel, this can be said to you, your wife, child, your brother, your best friend. The oblique, as the look may seem, can become a reason for a quarrel, then a demonstration of strength, then shooting. Who was adequate, who was right, it will be too late to understand. The right to self-defense should not become the identity of the right to kill. Even the state does not have the right to the death penalty now, there will be no trial and investigation, there will be seconds to think, and either they will kill you or you will kill you. Who provokes this topic, over and over again, is the bitch gun lobby. Nothing personal, they have a business, a very fat piece, and their sixes work out orders. There will always be sissy people who do not understand what life is, a peaceful life without blood and dirt, will start sprinkling "righteous" saliva here, sincerely beating for their sacred right to have guarantees of "safety", because "only slaves have no weapons" .. Do not be offended, brothers, soldiers and hunters, there are so many weapons, too many, if you are a man, you protect yourself and your family, and it’s better not to have skins and asses, especially if the right to kill is legalized instead of to establish constitutional order in the country.
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 5 February 2014 07: 13
      +9
      . Why can a stranger, left uncle, on legal grounds, be able to decide whether or not to live for you, only because he has acquired military weapons and it seemed to him that he is in danger?


      Forgive me, but why "someone else's left aunt" in a judge's robe, who by acquaintance unlearned at the law faculty, got the position of a judge by acquaintance and judges from an acquaintance, she can decide whether "you live or not" and "where you live behind bars or in your apartment "?

      if you are a man, you protect yourself and your family, and it is better not to have it for your skins and asses, all the more if you will legitimize the right to kill, instead of putting constitutional order in the country.


      And, if possible, enlighten how to do this, for example, if on a dark street a group of 3-5 pumped-up "bodies" piled up to you and your wife? Or just saw how several Caucasoids stick to Russian girls? Or if dark personalities are breaking into your house?
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 5 February 2014 07: 32
        +6
        Quote: alicante11
        Excuse me, why is "someone else's left aunt" in the judge's robe
        That is why, dear, why will a "stranger" uncle perform an operation in a hospital or teach your children at school. This is a state, and one should not confuse the cause with the effect, such stupid and dishonest aunts in robes should not be in our courts.
        Quote: alicante11
        And, if possible, enlighten how to do this, for example, if on a dark street a group of 3-5 pumped-up "bodies" piled up to you and your wife?
        Do not walk in the dark wastelands, especially with your wife. Secondly, don’t imagine yourself Batman, even if they give you an automatic pistol, it’s not a fact that you will have time to get it, that you will not be approached, but sneak up from the back, or they will shoot earlier or shoot immediately. Today you doubted the court and the police, tomorrow you will doubt our army, will you really want to do everything yourself here, ask for a tank? Go about your business, the state should do its own thing, and not shift its immediate responsibilities to ordinary citizens. The security of society is not in increasing weapons at the hands of citizens, but in disarming and neutralizing crime, the good work of law enforcement agencies and the development of culture. And, most importantly, no one deprives a person of the right to self-defense, but this right should not replace the law and the right to life of another.
        1. Same lech
          Same lech 5 February 2014 07: 55
          +9
          THEY ARE AND WILL BE-the state cannot, in extreme situations, assign to every citizen a policeman who has the skills to deal with a criminal.
          A citizen faced with a dilemma to live or not live during a fight with a bandit
          should not doubt the legality of their actions defending themselves against the killer.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 5 February 2014 08: 37
            +4
            Quote: The same LYOKHA
            A citizen faced with a dilemma to live or not to live during a fight with a bandit should doubt the legality of his actions while protecting himself from the killer.
            Nobody can deprive you of this right, no one disputes your right to self-defense, and there, how it goes, who is to blame should be decided by the court. Yes, the state cannot present a guard to everyone, but it must and must be concerned about the safety of the whole society and must have a decent and qualified judge for each court.
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 5 February 2014 08: 58
              +2
              “Should” and “does” are two big differences.
            2. Same lech
              Same lech 5 February 2014 09: 46
              +5
              Nobody disputes you the right to self-defense,

              You’re mistaken - they still dispute it (at least read the comments of people) - some are absolutely sure that the prerogative of the fight against the criminal should be entirely in the state - and my task as a citizen, when the gangster attacks, is to grab the phone to get the hehe to the nearest police station, if possible, wait for the faculty and still manage to maintain his health, property and life, and God forbid if you even touch a bandit with your finger, you sit instead of him.
              1. cherkas.oe
                cherkas.oe 6 February 2014 00: 53
                0
                Quote: PSih2097
                Nevertheless, if they climb, I’ll apply ...

                And what is easier for you to apply, a noose, a knife, or a gun?
          2. Walk
            Walk 5 February 2014 08: 49
            +6
            But how many citizens, especially given the general desire to slope away from the army, will be able to protect themselves, even with a barrel in their pocket? Even if such a person manages to get the barrel before the bandits, can he pull the trigger? Most likely he will be killed from the same trunk. In my opinion, the procedure should be as follows:
            1. Allow self-defense without reservation.
            2. To organize shooting clubs for citizens, without visiting and training in which it is impossible to obtain permission.
            3. Establish a mandatory visit to such clubs and competitions for weapons owners. Otherwise revocation of permission.
            4. Establish strict criminal liability for inappropriate storage conditions.
            1. rereture
              rereture 5 February 2014 09: 22
              +2
              And where is the army? Once a demobilization was added to my brother and me, simply because we are "suckers" and he served, and you have to kiss him in the ass for that, then this drunken cattle with the words, I'll show you what it is to serve in the army, rushed with fists at my brother ... If my brother alone did not fight back.
            2. military
              military 5 February 2014 10: 23
              +1
              Quote: Walk
              1. Allow self-defense without reservation.

              and how to prove "self-defense" suppose? ...
              one neighbor did not like the other ... offended (let's assume in advance that he is physically stronger) in the evening watches the "offender" in the alley and after a short scuffle makes him a blind man ... and the police declares - "I'm not guilty ... he came himself ... and attacked ... I ... that ... solely in self-defense ... here, look ... here I have two bruises and a scratch ... "
        2. alicante11
          alicante11 5 February 2014 08: 23
          +6
          That is why, dear, why will a "stranger" uncle perform an operation in a hospital or teach your children at school. This is a state, and one should not confuse the cause with the effect, such stupid and dishonest aunts in robes should not be in our courts.


          So if they were not there, then people would not need weapons! If everyone fulfilled their duties, then the cops, judges, doctors, teachers. That we would have no reason to defend ourselves. And even more so with the help of weapons.

          Do not walk in the dark wastelands, especially with your wife. Secondly, don’t imagine yourself Batman, even if they give you an automatic pistol, it’s not a fact that you will have time to get it, that you will not be approached, but sneak up from the back, or they will shoot earlier or shoot immediately.


          And I like to walk on the night streets, of course, not on wastelands. And why should a citizen, and not a layman, have to fall into his hole behind an iron door and not stick his nose out at nightfall? On account of the fact that they will shoot, yes. I wrote below that military weapons are not a panacea. But still...

          Today you doubted the court and the police, tomorrow you will doubt our army, will you really want to do everything yourself here, ask the tank


          Yes, doubted, I have the right. Since I have experience, thank God not with criminal, but with civil proceedings - this is complete lawlessness.
          At the expense of the army - where would it be without me in case of war? Lieutenant of the reserve of railway troops. So it’s not a tank, of course, but repair shops on the railway track at 2 Khabarovsk are waiting for me, if that.

          Go about your business, the state should do its own, and not shift its immediate responsibilities to ordinary citizens


          Now, if it was engaged ... That there would be no questions.

          The safety of society is not in increasing weapons at the hands of citizens, but in disarming and neutralizing crime, good law enforcement and cultural development


          Which is categorically impossible in a consumer society. No matter how much they accrue to the police, how many do not arrange for them certification.

          And, most importantly, no one deprives a person of the right to self-defense, but this right should not replace the law and the right to life of another.


          Excuse me, but how does this "not deprive"? And what about us, "with a bare heel on the checker"? Good self-defense turns out.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 5 February 2014 08: 47
            +7
            Quote: alicante11
            Excuse me, but how does this "not deprive"? And what about us, "with a bare heel on the checker"? Good self-defense turns out.
            I will answer you this way, there is a law "On weapons", buy, use to defend your home. Love to tempt fate with late and lonely walks, take injuries in your pocket if you cannot boast of a struggle, but do not become a criminal yourself by logic. Do you really believe that a short barrel in your pocket is like a nuclear shield for the country? Whoever needs it, enough against a pistol and a piece of reinforcement, you yourself will not die, so you will lose your weapon, and neither you will be killed from it, nor will someone else be killed. If you are looking for adventures on your backside, the pistol will inappropriately shoot, and it is not a fact that saving you or your loved ones.
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 5 February 2014 09: 02
              +3
              Yeah, there is a law on weapons, but there is a limit on self-defense. And somehow their study is not in favor of normal citizens.

              Love fate tempt with late and lonely walks, take trauma in your pocket


              I prefer pneumatics. Less likely to be fatal. And there are less chances that the "authorities" will later have claims. And here the main thing is to gain an advantage. As the saying goes - "the main thing is to fill up, and then we stumble."
        3. Kazakh
          Kazakh 5 February 2014 08: 37
          +4
          such stupid and dishonest aunts in robes should not be in our courts.
          And also corrupt policemen, incompetent officials of cattle teenagers, poor builders, drunk drivers. Well, didn’t you continue the associative series? As long as there are dishonest aunts in the mantle, I will always want to have something serious at hand so as not to be called the insulting word TERPILA.
          1. Walk
            Walk 5 February 2014 09: 02
            +2
            The fact of the matter is that we must begin with the system, legislation, and not with the permission of weapons. While there will be dishonest, or simply incompetent, judges and law enforcement officers, and the legislation will not be on the side of the defender, the gun in your pocket will cause more problems for the owner.
        4. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 5 February 2014 12: 16
          +3
          Quote: Per se.
          not the fact that you have time to get it, that they will not approach you, but to sneak up from the back, or they will either shoot earlier or shoot right away

          Imagine yourself a criminal for a moment, and simulate two different situations, in one the alleged victim is unarmed, in the other she may have a gun. Which do you think is a victim? Even the alleged availability of weapons is a powerful demotivator, even for an armed criminal. This is confirmed by statistics, in no country in the world after the permission of the short-barreled crime an increase in the number of crimes was recorded, everywhere there was a decrease in crime. Well, there are thugs in any society, now they kill with knives.
        5. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 5 February 2014 17: 53
          +2
          Quote: Per se.
          Do not walk in the dark wastelands, especially with your wife.

          Uh-huh, and in general, don't go anywhere and with anyone, otherwise the "babay" will take it away.
          Quote: Per se.
          if they give you an automatic pistol, it’s not a fact that you will have time to get it, that they will not approach you, but rather sneak up from the back, or they will either shoot earlier or shoot right away.

          Let them try, risk their health and head off.
          I don’t know how anyone, but personally with whom I spoke from the owners of the weapons, everyone will get it and use it when necessary, including me.
          Sneaking up from the back must be able to and against a person who knows what to expect in our living conditions and in the dark streets, is unlikely to work.
          Quote: Per se.
          the state should deal with its own, and not shift its immediate responsibilities to ordinary citizens

          Yes, it’s felt, especially in the outback where the local inspector is often three villages away and he doesn’t live in yours (and you can’t get his phone either, because people are extinguished as much as possible), and the department is only in the district center for ~ twenty kilometers. from the place where you live, and a crazy geek a stone's throw from you may be.
          Quote: Per se.
          The security of society is not in increasing weapons at the hands of citizens, but in disarming and neutralizing crime, the good work of law enforcement agencies and the development of culture.

          An old song, but things are still there. And for this inaction of the authorities, thousands of ordinary people paid with their lives. And I personally do not want to replenish this account with myself and the life of my loved ones, and I will not, expecting help from an unknown uncle (aunt)
          Quote: Per se.
          And, most importantly, no one deprives a person of the right to self-defense, but this right should not replace the law and the right to life of another.

          Nonsense, all the laws in this sector are only for paper and the appearance of bureaucrats.
          By your logic, it turns out that those who are trying in our country to protect themselves and their property (if he is not involved in the authorities and the oligarchy) are all jailed, even if they never robbed or killed anyone in their life, but trying to defend their stand automatically in the same row with the terry criminals.
          But this is just dolbo..zm, unjustifiably dolbo ... zm.
          I think sharply, but for sure. Understand life is cruel and this is not a movie, this is life.
      2. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 5 February 2014 07: 34
        +5
        I understand from most comments that no one really read the article.
        In the 60s of the last century, a wave of youth street crime swept through the Soviet Union. The police were then armed with batons, all the workers were ordered to be on duty in the national squads, but nothing helped. In the evening, the streets of the cities turned into the jungle, teeming with codes of impudent punks. Here is what Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote under the impression of the situation at that time:
        For many on the site, the name Solzhenitsyn causes nausea, but ..... + article laughing
        If he had a weapon - he would survive himself, neutralize the bastard and save others.
        And despite the fact that the author rejects any outcomes of another development of events, only a victory when you have a trunk in your pants. The people on the site in the majority completely agree.
        Author Michael Goldreer
        Probably a Jew should know what is better than a Russian fool
        One idle talk and nothing more. The usual lobby of the mates.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 5 February 2014 07: 55
          +1
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          If he had a weapon - he would survive himself, neutralize the bastard and save others.
          That's right, Alexander, if only good and adequate people would have weapons here. By the way, not all criminals are scum and sadistic mockers, often more dangerous are those who wanted the best. You got the trunk in your pants - shoot, otherwise they will stop being afraid, or they will retreat today, and tomorrow they will attack from around the corner. And, with all due respect, it is always better for a Jew to know what is better than a Jew, and this is not an indicator of the ultimate truth, regardless of nationality.
          1. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov 5 February 2014 08: 10
            +8
            Quote: Per se.
            That's right, Alexander

            No not like this! First, I didn’t write, but a quote from the article. Two police officers had weapons, but one died, the other was wounded. It didn’t help, as we see the weapon. The surprise of the attack plays an important role. So 90% of cases, even if you have a trunk, you he will not help. You will simply be taken from him.
            Quote: Per se.
            And with all due respect, a Jew is always better off knowing what is better for a Jew

            Then let them give advice in Israel!
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. matross
          matross 5 February 2014 13: 23
          0
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          chatter and nothing more. The usual lobby of the mates.

          No, this article is not in favor of legalizing weapons. With such names and quotes from Solzhenitsyn, articles on patriotic forums are written only "against". Delicate work.
    2. Same lech
      Same lech 5 February 2014 07: 52
      +5
      The right to self-defense should not become an identity to the right to kill.


      As proponents of prohibitions usually articulate their thoughts in such a way that the victim of the attack still has to think when several thugs beat her and how would I protect myself from killing bandits, it’s a VERY SERIOUS FORMULATION.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 5 February 2014 08: 26
        +4
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        How cunningly usually proponents of prohibitions formulate their thoughts, in such a way that the victim of the attack still has to think when several thugs beat her with bits
        There is nothing tricky, no need to stoop to the level of criminals. Who, after all, prevents you from walking with the same bat, gas or traumatic pistol? No, you are inappropriately beaten with bats, and inappropriately stupid troglodytes or vagabonds, and do not point a couple of "Kalash" or "Makarov" at you, cunning and experienced bandits. So it turns out, give me a pistol against homeless people and youngsters, an automatic machine against rolling, a grenade launcher against armed bandits, or just a tank. Do you need such a society? I don’t.
        1. Same lech
          Same lech 5 February 2014 09: 01
          +6
          There is nothing cunning, do not go down to the level of criminals.


          Where is this level ??

          On the street (for example), I protected the girl from a drug addict, plucked earrings, as is often the case, gave him a turnip at that moment — he picked up and stretched his legs — you understand his health, the drug addict tore his job, that’s all, I’m already a criminal in the eyes of the state.
          So this line is very unsteady and ephemeral, rightly in the people they say the LAW THAT BREATHED WHERE TURNED THERE IS OUT.

          And notice without any gunshot.
        2. Walk
          Walk 5 February 2014 09: 25
          +8
          There should be a right to self-defense, and how I exercise it shouldn't worry anyone if I'm defending myself. If a couple of tinted "at night" jeeps drove up to my house, and 10 people with war barrels got out of them, I should have the right to defend myself from any weapon. And at night, in a dark alley, I should also have the right to protect myself, my loved ones and just people in trouble. Another thing is that there are almost no such lanes left, and they are usually found by those who are looking for adventure themselves. But the right to be protected must be enshrined in legislation in the first place.
        3. Same lech
          Same lech 5 February 2014 09: 28
          +3
          So it turns out, give me a pistol against homeless people and youngsters, an automatic machine against pumping, a grenade launcher against armed bandits or a tank right away


          Do you need an atomic bomb? For complete peace of mind smile

          This is a typical response of disarmament supporters — firstly, I don’t need a weapon, but the confidence that the state can protect me from these criminal personalities — I DON’T HAVE SUCH CONFIDENCE — that’s why I have to think about my defense myself and then the government puts me in the wheel with all sorts of restrictions - the only thing it can allow me to do is to run away from the criminal or set him up his ass.
    3. PSih2097
      PSih2097 5 February 2014 07: 53
      +1
      Quote: Per se.
      that there is a right to shoot to kill from military weapons.

      firearms (hunting rifled and smoothbore are also weapons) ...
      Quote: alicante11
      Or if dark personalities burst into your house?

      Well, for this I have four tools in the safe ...
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 5 February 2014 08: 14
        +4
        Quote: PSih2097
        firearms (hunting rifled and smoothbore are also weapons) ...
        So there is the status of weapons, hunting weapons for hunting, sports for sports shooting. Even the beloved bread slicer in the examples has an appointment in the kitchen. Combat weapons have no other purpose than direct ones - destruction of the enemy, it is not for injury, not for sound or gas effect. If you legitimize his status, which, in fact, they achieve, this is the right to a shot, the legalized right to a death sentence. Don't see the difference in firearms? It is a pity that you can kill from hunting weapons, of course, but this will be an excess of self-defense, it will be the use of weapons for other purposes. Even hunting, to shoot the same moose, you need permission, a license, is it really human life is more trifling matter? If you legalize the knives, the right to use them for self-defense, even the same stools for lynching, then these items will become not an improvised means, but a legalized weapon with the right to kill, and not only forced to defend.
        1. rereture
          rereture 5 February 2014 08: 33
          0
          By the way, in order to kill with a pistol, you also need to try, unless of course the bullet did not hit the head. A shell bullet when hit in any part of the body is guaranteed to put the attacker out of action. With timely medical care, the attacker will survive. And then let the police find out what he got the bullet for.
        2. PSih2097
          PSih2097 5 February 2014 08: 36
          +2
          Quote: Per se.
          It is a pity that you can kill from hunting weapons, of course, but this will be an excess of self-defense, it will be the use of weapons for other purposes.

          Nevertheless, if they climb, I’ll apply ...
          As the saying goes, "It is better to let 12 strangers judge me than to see off 6 friends on my last journey" ...

        3. The comment was deleted.
      2. alicante11
        alicante11 5 February 2014 08: 23
        +4
        God forbid you use them. They will put the fuck - 99%.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 5 February 2014 12: 36
      +4
      A polite society is an armed society.
      Knowing that everyone he meets can have a weapon with him and a person can use it, not even every scumbag wants to perform the "feat of Matrosov."
      On the other hand, a person who has a legally acquired combat barrel with him also perfectly understands what his nonlegal use "smells" and is unlikely to want to use it everywhere and for any occasion, all the more knowing that his opponent may also be with the barrel.
      So that carrying citizens with them a pistol with live ammunition will be a kind of brake when conflicts arise.
      And those who do not have brakes in their heads will not live in this society for a long time (and I personally do not feel sorry for such people, that’s the way).
      The question here is mainly that the criminal elements of society now have an undeniable advantage over law-abiding and sane citizens, in the form of various types of firearms illegally held by them, including pistols (not to mention something more serious )
      Changes in laws (the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on self-defense and the Law on Weapons) will deprive this of the advantage of criminal elements over law-abiding citizens if they are allowed to carry and use pistols under a live (lethal) cartridge, as well as other weapons systems suitable for weapons for self-defense (shotguns, magazine and self-loading rifles and carbines with a rifled barrel and a magazine capacity of 10 rounds (Mosin rifles, SKS for example).
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 5 February 2014 13: 56
        +2
        Quote: wanderer_032
        The question here is mainly that the criminal elements of society currently have an undeniable advantage over law-abiding and sane citizens.
        Dear Alexander, criminals will always have this advantage, because a normal person will respect the law and morality, but they will not, they stick a sharpener in the back and shoot from around the corner. To this will be added the newly minted "samurai", and other moneybags, who even without weapons go to the same road accidents and restaurants, evade responsibility, give them legal permission to shoot, and will kill, finding a hundred witnesses that they were attacked. Therefore, speaking about weapons, one must understand that a simple resolution-legalization of short-barrels is not a solution to the problem, especially with an eye on the crafty statistics from other countries. I will not repeat what has already been said above, I will only add that the only thing that can be agreed with is permission to carry personal weapons to employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, as well as officers of the army and navy, but with the obligation of their assistance to protect law and order within the framework of the law.
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 5 February 2014 16: 42
          0
          I do not agree with you, Sergey and I will explain why.
          Quote: Per se.
          criminal elements will always have this advantage, because a normal person will honor law and morality, but they don’t,

          If such elements know that the "game" can become a hunter itself (this mainly concerns street robbers), then they are unlikely to heroically climb under the bullets, they value their skin more than anything else, because they are only capable of attacking that who in their opinion is weaker, and therefore will not be able to offer them serious resistance, but they can take "swag" from him normally. Such is their jackal psychology.
          Quote: Per se.
          To this will be added the newly-minted "samurai", and other moneybags, who, even without weapons, are in the same road accidents and restaurants, evade responsibility

          After the necessary amendments to the laws, this will not last long, because the number of bulls and brawlers will quickly decline. Understanding that the lawyer will not cover them (from a bullet that he can take out without leaving the box office) and that they will not come out of the water, believe me, they will reduce their habits, and whoever doesn’t diminish, those relatives at the funeral wake eat compote with pancakes, with a drink in the bargain.
          Quote: Per se.
          the only thing you can agree with is the permission to carry personal weapons to employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, as well as officers of the army and navy, but with the obligation to help them maintain law and order within the framework of the law.

          With all due respect to the representatives of the service class of our long-suffering country, there are black sheep in their midst (I apologize for the harshness, but this is reality, unfortunately). Think about such people if they are allowed to wear their own service card during off-duty hours (this does not apply to normal, sane guys). Considering what you are proposing, I am all the more inclined to change the laws in favor of the fact that weapons can be legally carried and used for their protection (as well as for the protection of their home and their families), to all adult, normal citizens of Russia. "That is, those who are above the law and who like to wreak havoc while remaining unattainable should not be in our country, I am against it.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 5 February 2014 18: 05
            +2
            Once again I’m convinced, Alexander, how difficult this topic is. Of course, you have the right to a personal opinion, like many who have expressed their concern. I just want to pay attention to your own statements.
            Quote: wanderer_032
            If such elements know that the "game" can itself become a hunter (this mainly concerns street robbers), then they are unlikely to heroically climb under the bullets
            They will not climb on bullets, but they can also attack precisely because they will know that you are carrying a weapon. I think it’s not for me to tell you, all the cases of attacks by criminals with the aim of taking possession of weapons, often criminals not armed with firearms, and often by attacks on trained employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. What then can we say about ordinary "nerds" and women, even strong men, whose weapons can be the target of capture? The presence of weapons is not a guarantee of security, just as displaying them can only provoke, not prevent, violence.
            Quote: wanderer_032
            After the necessary amendments to the laws, this will not last long, because the number of bulls and brawlers will quickly decline
            Unfortunately, when comparing, such "gentlemen" do not decrease on the roads, despite all the traffic rules and laws, despite the fact that, logically, only normal people should receive a driver's license. It is doubtful that weapons will be any better.
            Quote: wanderer_032
            With all due respect to the representatives of the service class of our long-suffering country, there are black sheep in their midst (I apologize for the harshness, but this is a reality, unfortunately).
            If you question the officer corps, people under oath in the service of the Fatherland, what can we say about ordinary men, rich and poor, modest and violent, smart and not so, decent and scoundrels? So I have to think about who will point the barrel at my child, deciding whether to live, and it may be just a drunken "bull" neighbor, a rejected inadequate boyfriend, and not an outright criminal ...
            1. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 5 February 2014 18: 48
              0
              Quote: Per se.
              They won’t climb on bullets, but they can attack precisely because they will know that you are carrying a weapon.

              Where is the logic in your arguments?
              Quote: Per se.
              all cases of attack by criminals with the aim of taking possession of weapons, often not armed with guns of criminals, and often by attacking trained police officers

              Well then, let's take away weapons from everyone, including the army, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB, the FSO and the pr.kontor, otherwise God forbid the bandits will arm them.
              Let everyone go unarmed (including the protection of the president and other state officials), and in case of which they wave their fists away, there they teach many hand-to-hand combat.
              Gives insanity, right?
              But following your logic, this is how everything should be understood.
              Quote: Per se.
              Unfortunately, when comparing, such "gentlemen" do not decrease

              Quote: Per se.
              It is doubtful that with a weapon everything will be better.

              Will it be better or not is all fortune-telling on the water.
              But one thing will change for sure (after a couple of these are shot), everyone will be more polite in communicating with each other at least.
              And rowdy tail will squeeze. What is happening now is a direct confirmation of the saying — impunity breeds lawlessness.
              Quote: Per se.
              So I have to think about who will point the barrel at my child, deciding whether to live, and it may be just a drunken "bull" neighbor, a rejected inadequate boyfriend, and not an outright criminal ...

              You will probably be surprised, but every person is at risk of losing their life every day, even being in everyday reality and doing everyday activities.
              Weapons are the factor that allows an individual, individually or collectively, to reduce the risk of being killed by another person for various reasons pushing him to kill, that's all.
              It is possible to kill a person with his bare hands or feet, but no one calls for all hands and feet to be torn off at birth by everyone.
              This is the same absurdity as depriving a person of the right to protect his life by any means and means.
  • VADEL
    VADEL 5 February 2014 07: 01
    +6
    Without the respect of the state for true freedom of the individual, no breakthroughs will come about.

    If the short-barrel is personal freedom (according to the author), the question arises: How far is he going to break with it? What bright future? recourse
    1. Walk
      Walk 5 February 2014 09: 40
      +3
      Yes, this author just needs to reproach our state once again for not sharing its "liberal values". And the reason is not particularly important to him, be it the law on weapons or the prohibition of gay propaganda. It would be happiness for him if the streets of Russia were walked by "creative, creative personalities, hung with weapons. Approximately the same as they are now walking on the Maidan.
  • demotivator
    demotivator 5 February 2014 07: 06
    +17
    All my maternal ancestors are Terek Cossacks. In old home photos of males, there is not a single man without a weapon. All, as one in the Circassians, and the obligatory dagger on the belt and a checker. In addition, every home always had at least one rifle. I will not say anything about the short-barreled, probably they were. I remember as a boy, back in Soviet times, among her three brothers who have survived to this day, how the Caucasian typesetting belts were kept as relics (they regularly put them on themselves), handmade Caucasian daggers with the master's brand, as they later said, made of Cossack sabers. They were forbidden to the Cossacks, so, in order not to waste the good, they made daggers out of them. Plus a couple of three hunting rifles of different calibers. Well, a Cossack cannot be without a weapon, especially in our country, in the North Caucasus. While we are here procrastinating on the topic "Should not, or give or not give", our neighbors, without asking anyone, have long had them. We do not need golden pistols, we can do with the usual ones. But the chances need to be equalized urgently. Otherwise, they are already greedy.
  • ICT
    ICT 5 February 2014 07: 08
    +1
    it would be better to discuss the proposed changes to the existing law on weapons. wassat
  • Same lech
    Same lech 5 February 2014 07: 16
    -1
    Here is the classic situation — the victim cannot escape and has nothing to defend.
    And if the criminal were a little smarter than the death of the victim could not have been avoided.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 5 February 2014 08: 11
      +1
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      Here is the classic situation — the victim cannot escape and has nothing to defend.

      And what does this video prove?
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 5 February 2014 08: 28
        +1
        Alexander, well, imagine how the attack would end, if the man had a short barrel in his back pocket.
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 5 February 2014 08: 37
          +3
          Quote: The same LYOKHA
          Well, imagine how the attack would end, if the man had a short barrel in his back pocket.

          No matter what, the video is not a robbery, but a banal attempt to kill, and if the shooter was more accurate, the victim did not even have time to pull out a gun.
          1. Same lech
            Same lech 5 February 2014 09: 16
            0
            So it means that the victim should not have a chance to give an answer to the bandit - so it turns out, I don’t want to shoot.
            1. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 5 February 2014 10: 27
              +2
              Quote: The same LYOKHA
              So it means that the victim should not have a chance to give an answer to the bandit

              Finish breeding demagoguery, you all perfectly understood and yourself posted a video on which you will have no chance, even with a gun.
              1. Same lech
                Same lech 5 February 2014 10: 30
                -2
                Stop breeding demagoguery
                - "it's you in vain" if there are no arguments it is better not to rush with such words.
  • demotivator
    demotivator 5 February 2014 07: 20
    +14
    Here is one of the photographs of my grandfather - the Terek Cossack Kosyuhno Karp Danilovich (in the photo he is on the left). It was made in Pyatigorsk a few months before the start of the First World War.
  • Blad_21617
    Blad_21617 5 February 2014 07: 23
    +1
    weapons are necessary! it will definitely not spoil the statistics of crimes, because it will be REGISTERED units! in any case, if crimes are committed with the use of weapons, then the latter has always been and will become "leftist". and so an ordinary law-abiding citizen will have a chance to defend his life, honor and wallet ..
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 5 February 2014 08: 13
      +5
      Quote: Blad_21617
      because it will be a registered unit

      What kid came to school with what trunk?
      Quote: Blad_21617
      and so the ordinary law-abiding citizen will have a chance to defend his life, honor and wallet ..

      Sorry, and when was the last time you were robbed on the street?
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 5 February 2014 08: 31
        +6
        What kid came to school with what trunk?


        With a stolen trunk, not only did he fray his father, he quietly took a weapon from him that was poorly protected from thieves with decent ammunition - DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE LAW both from the side of the father and the inadequate son.
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 5 February 2014 08: 42
          +2
          Quote: The same LYOKHA
          With a stolen barrel, not only is his father gouging

          And how many such fathers are there in our country?
      2. rereture
        rereture 5 February 2014 08: 36
        0
        If by law, then the boy came with illegal weapons, so he didn’t receive it legally, namely, he RIPPED from the bati from the safe.
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 5 February 2014 08: 41
          +2
          Quote: rereture
          If by law, then the boy came with illegal weapons, so he didn’t receive it legally, namely, he RIPPED from the bati from the safe

          And what does that change? Or for relatives of the victims is of great importance.
          1. rereture
            rereture 5 February 2014 08: 55
            +1
            It changes everything. This means that any psychopath can get weapons, and you will protect yourself and your family from such a psychopath with your bare hands.


            And you don’t need to drag the families of the dead here. Let the father and the moved guy explain.
            1. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 5 February 2014 10: 30
              +1
              Quote: rereture
              This means that any psychopath can get weapons, and you will protect yourself and your family from such a psychopath with your bare hands.

              Buy a saiga or do you buy a gun for your son at school so that he would protect himself from the psychopath of a classmate who will steal the gun from his dad?
              Quote: rereture
              And you don’t need to drag the families of the dead here

              Oh well, and here you pick out the nuances you need, and when you realize that you didn’t write it at all, it’s not worth it right away.
              1. rereture
                rereture 5 February 2014 10: 49
                +1
                I’m already buying saigas, I am collecting documents, but I wouldn’t refuse a short-barrel for post-shootings on banks and practical shooting.

                Tell me, what about the family of the deceased geographer?
  • makarov
    makarov 5 February 2014 07: 32
    +4
    "Self-defense with arms in hand is the right of a citizen, not a layman"

    Accustomed to precise conclusions and formulations. Once I read a price tag under a tea package in a Lviv store: - Herbata tea, and the price. The person who wrote the label did not understand and did not realize their actions due to stupidity or ignorance. Since the Polish word "herbata" is translated into Russian, it sounds like "tea".
    So, the Russian word "citizen", translated into Polish, sounds like "philistine".
    Thus, if we translate the sentence "Self-defense with arms in hand is the right of a citizen, not a layman" into the language of accurate reproduction of concepts, then we get "Self-defense with arms in hand is the right of a citizen, not a citizen." Further reading the material, I just lost the desire.
    1. f4b2
      f4b2 5 February 2014 08: 29
      +2
      Yes, you do not need to read this article.
      For we are not in Poland, and we do not speak Polish.
      For me personally, the concept of a citizen and a layman is different.
      Look for the subtleties of the translation further. There are many languages, maybe something else will turn out convenient ...
      1. makarov
        makarov 5 February 2014 09: 04
        +6
        "For me personally, the concept of a citizen and a layman is different."

        Therefore, for you and others like you, to this day, the concept of "trigger" and "trigger" means the same thing, from which they write in various works that it is necessary to press the trigger. But that's okay. This is from illiteracy, often bordering on meagerness. hi
        1. f4b2
          f4b2 5 February 2014 11: 03
          +3
          That is yes. Insanity - that's right you noticed! It’s meager mind!
          Here you are, from Citizen:
          (And, mind you, again in Russian.
          Not in Polish, sorry, you are our witty ...)

          "The son cannot look calmly
          On the mother’s grief,
          There will be no worthy citizen
          To the Fatherland is cold in soul ...
          Go to the fire for the honor of the Fatherland
          For beliefs, for love ...
          Go and perish flawlessly.
          You will not die for nothing ... "
    2. rereture
      rereture 5 February 2014 19: 50
      +1
      Dictionary of Ozhegov

      RESIDENT, 1st, metro 2. In Tsarist Russia: urban resident (merchant, tradesman, artisan), as well as a resident of the taxable estates in general. City about. Rural about. XNUMX. A person deprived of public horizons, living only with small personal interests, tradesman (in 2 values). Turn into a layman. || g. Everyman, s. || adj. philistine, th, th. Philistine horses (not postal, hired; obsolete.). The philistine mood.

      CITIZEN, a, many. citizens, citizens, m. 1. A person belonging to the permanent population of a given state, enjoying its protection and endowed with a set of rights and obligations. 2. An adult, as well as a form of appeal to him. || g. citizen, and.
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 5 February 2014 20: 32
        +1
        And now, as they say, you will feel the difference. yes
        1. makarov
          makarov 6 February 2014 05: 14
          0
          SW Alexander. By referring to Ozhegov, you make unforgivable mistakes without taking into account his time and environment. And since the topic is somewhat different than small arms, so as not to litter it, I will give you an answer in PM, where I will indicate your t.s. fallacy, like Ozhegov himself. hi
  • Walk
    Walk 5 February 2014 07: 47
    +2
    The fact that the author refers to Solzhenitsyn is already suspicious. And the author’s surname is very liberal. Liberals, after all, seem to deny power as an organ of coercion to order. Apparently I want various moishes to have lawlessness in the streets in Russia.
  • alicante11
    alicante11 5 February 2014 08: 03
    +3
    The problem of weapons is not as simple as it is presented by both conflicting parties on it.
    Let's look at the objections that can be raised on both sides.
    1. Supporters of the ban on military weapons say that the legalization of weapons will cause shooting. Probably yes. Well, we have such a mentality. This is the same as a Russian driver, he knows the rules, knows that he is mowing, and, nevertheless, he is still mowing on the road. There will be drunken skirmishes and shooting "on show-offs". And in schools they will shoot like in America. You can't get away from this. How many are trying to fight drunkenness while driving? What's the point? They will also shoot drunk.
    People who say for military weapons that it will allow them to defend themselves. Will it allow? After all, the bandits will also have guns. They already have them. And what can you, a simple person, be able to do with one of your "trunk", against 3-5?
    And whether you will use your "gun" to defeat, knowing our judicial system, which can turn any self-defense into contract murder, the only question is how much will be paid for it. But at least the psychological hemorrhoids from the investigation are provided in full. Even with the most loyal defense legislation.

    2. The weapon really gives great psychological comfort. And it develops decisiveness in the middle of its owner, because it makes it possible to neutralize the bandit without entering into personal contact with him, and at the same time prudence, since the weapons still need to be used in such a way that he himself does not run into a response to the bullet.
    Weapons can prevent many crimes. Since there are always more normal people than scum. And, having weapons in their hands, they will quickly respond to a call for help. And it’s easier to protect your house with weapons than without weapons.
    The presence of weapons among the population will make the lawless officials less arrogant, because, driving a person to despair, say, by extortion, or simply by stupid "prohibition", you can get a well-deserved bullet from him.

    There is no choice between these questions. It is impossible to take all the good and remove all the bad. It seems to me that the most acceptable solution is "non-lethal" weapons.
    Such a weapon also allows you to neutralize the bandit without coming into contact with him. But it allows you not to think about the consequences of prosecution. Just for two reasons. Firstly, it is not always possible to determine who used a non-lethal legal weapon, while no one canceled the bulletproof magazine of a legal firearm. Yes, and they will not search too actively. Cops have more important things to do. And secondly, if no harm is done, then there is nothing to judge. Therefore, people will use such weapons even more decisively, without fear of consequences.
    At the same time, this weapon is as dangerous in the hands of a desperate person as a combat one. A desperate person can finish off a defeated enemy.

    The problem here is the lack of such a safe "non-lethal" weapon. After all, even a traumatic injury can cause serious harm to health. While a sufficiently safe pneumatics are too weak in their action. Although it is her that I now consider to be optimal for self-defense. It seems to me that a self-defense weapon based on the principle of a stun gun would be very promising. But not contact, but, say, in the form of a bullet, inside which there is a charged capacitor, which can hit a person with a sufficient discharge to neutralize it.
  • PSih2097
    PSih2097 5 February 2014 08: 10
    +7
    I don’t know for a short barrel, I have a smooth barrel with a rifled grab above the roof, as well as hemorrhoids with it (checks, safe, alarm).
    as for me, the presence of a barrel under the arm still does not guarantee the safety of the owner of the pistol / revolver, you still need to be able to apply it (and in a stressful situation), and working out the skills of use will be a pleasure not cheap (this is both a shooting range and an instructor and actually cartridges)
    1. Walk
      Walk 5 February 2014 09: 58
      +1
      That's right. I already wrote about this above. On the one hand, without fixed skills, a weapon will give a completely unreasonable sense of confidence, and on the other hand, due to the high cost of ownership, only large businessmen, officials and bandits will have it. So they already have it, only they do not always dare to apply it, but if the law allows it, the last brake will disappear.
    2. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 5 February 2014 17: 05
      0
      Quote: PSih2097
      as for me, the presence of a barrel under the arm still does not guarantee the safety of the owner of the pistol / revolver, you still need to be able to apply it (and in a stressful situation), and working out the skills of use will be a pleasure not cheap (this is both a shooting range and an instructor and actually cartridges)

      What prevents creating tiers and season tickets for a month, like a pool?
      And improve your skills as much as you like.
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 5 February 2014 17: 45
        0
        Quote: wanderer_032
        What prevents creating tiers and season tickets for a month, like a pool?
        And improve your skills as much as you like.

        So all is well, just pay ...
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • Vadim-Skeptic
    Vadim-Skeptic 5 February 2014 08: 12
    +13
    I would buy a couple of "Vikings", with spare clips and a few "zinc".
    I would also buy:
    1. AKS-74 - 2 pcs.
    2. Spare stores - 2 BC per AKC.
    3. Ammo - let there be 10 boxes.
    4. RMB - 1 pc.
    5. Carton tape - 3 pcs.
    6. Cartridges - 30 boxes.
    7. "Pribludy" for care, equipment of ribbons, and of ribbons - several pieces.
    8. RPG-7 - 1 pc.
    9. Shots for RPGs of various types - 10 each.
    10. F-1 and RGD-5 - 1 box each.
    11. Other - as needed.

    All sorts of psychologists say that the weapon is like a "phallic symbol", something else about "complexes and sublimation." So, I want to sublimate and compensate for the complexes a little.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 5 February 2014 08: 43
      +3
      Quote: Vadim the Skeptic
      11. Other - as needed.

      BTR, Tank, Mi-24 (Ka-52), Su 37 (Pak FA), Tu-95 (Tu-160) and the little things Aircraft carrier (do not offer Mistral) for all thislaughing
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Siberia 9444
      Siberia 9444 5 February 2014 09: 42
      +3
      Not bad, not bad, but noisy. I want V.A.L. legenki and noiseless 9mm solves many problems laughing
      While weapons are not banned, do not be afraid of everything in order in this world! V.S. Vysotsky
    5. makarov
      makarov 5 February 2014 09: 51
      +1
      "So, I want to sublimate a little"

      Choose sublimation methods to choose from: soldier

      Sublimation (physics) or sublimation - the transition of a substance from a solid to a gaseous state without being in a liquid state;
      Sublimation (psychology) - the transformation of libidinal energy into creative energy;
      Sublimation (printing) - a method of transferring images to various surfaces: wood, metal, ceramics and polyester fabrics.
      Sublimation (dehydration) is a technology for removing water ice from frozen fresh products, biological materials by vacuum (sublimation).
    6. Same lech
      Same lech 5 February 2014 10: 00
      +1
      All that you have listed is necessary for partisan action — you forgot the truth about food and warm clothing and equipment for survival in impassable forests of RUSSIA. smile
    7. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 5 February 2014 10: 31
      +3
      Quote: Vadim the Skeptic
      I would also buy:

      The employees have already left for you, meet laughing
      1. DMB-78
        DMB-78 5 February 2014 18: 49
        +1
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        The staff has already left for you

        in white coats?)))))))))))))
    8. Srgsoap
      Srgsoap 5 February 2014 12: 55
      +5
      And for me, such a locker is not bad)))))
    9. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 5 February 2014 13: 09
      0
      A dream game is a disease of the mind. laughing laughing laughing
    10. Navy7981
      Navy7981 5 February 2014 16: 17
      0
      I support !!!!! wink
    11. Navy7981
      Navy7981 5 February 2014 16: 18
      0
      I support you! wink complexes are not sickly but I have the same!
    12. nerd.su
      nerd.su 5 February 2014 17: 09
      +1
      Buy a ballistic missile, Topol-M, for example. The United States will even be afraid of you, that is, respect! Sublimation is so sublimation, you compensate all the complexes at once!
      By the way, you can borrow money to buy. And then you can not give back the debt, the same Americans with the help of such a scheme live well laughing
  • Stinger
    Stinger 5 February 2014 08: 41
    +3
    Never weak power will not allow the armed population. The state example is not for us. There, if you recall, in the late 60s Negroes organized Maidan pohlesche Kiev. Houses burned in Washington, New York, and Detroit especially. The authorities did not arrange negotiations. Democratically sent troops to the streets, shot the instigators and restored order. Nobody even uttered the prohibition of violence against the people. This is a strong power and arm yourself there as you want.
    1. Walk
      Walk 5 February 2014 10: 06
      -1
      It's not about the power of the government, but about the strength of the country. If something similar was done in Ukraine now, then NATO troops would have already been sent there to "protect democracy."
  • DimaJastrebov
    DimaJastrebov 5 February 2014 08: 41
    +3
    One of the arguments of supporters of the sale and carrying of weapons - such as a knife, is also killed, let's forbid knives. the knife is intended for domestic use - cutting bread, meat, etc. The gun is intended only for killing. You can also kill with your hands, following your logic - since hands are not forbidden, then pistols cannot be forbidden, right?
    With a massive possession of weapons, it will also be in the gopota and gopota, will not point the barrel at you and shake pockets. Gopnik, knowing that you are not unarmed and can react faster, just shoot at you, and then calmly check your pockets.
    Inquiries from drug traffickers, psychologists, etc. mean absolutely nothing - they also check people’s rights, but this does not save them from boorish and unbalanced behavior on the roads.
    The police, at any seemingly suspicious movement of yours, will also shoot first, and only then understand, you pulled the barrel out of your pocket or just a lighter.
    In the United States, people die hundreds in a year simply from random shots, where someone fired into the air or simply shot sideways during a conflict, and a bullet flew and found a victim. You stand at the window, boil the seagulls - bam and the deceased.
    Minor conflicts - hurt in the crowd, it didn’t seem like that, he scratched the car, and so on - they just can be solved by verbal skirmishing, but they will be decided by weapons. in the end, one will be a corpse or a cripple, the other in prison.
    And gentlemen, supporters of the sale of weapons will have to go in bulletproof vests, helmets, bulletproof windows in apartments, armored cars, and you still won’t feel safe. Do you need it?
    The arms lobby advocates for the arms trade, and the creative class picks up this idea, and in another way, office hamsters, which you want to become awesome like. with the trunk, then he will look like a wolf. Wait, they wipe their feet on him - and there will be a trunk - oh how they respect)))
    1. rereture
      rereture 5 February 2014 08: 59
      0
      There will be a bullet-cartridge case, that is, it will not be difficult to calculate the owner who shot you, and the shot is a loud affair, unlike a knife under the ribs. They will call the police and quickly find them.
      1. DimaJastrebov
        DimaJastrebov 5 February 2014 09: 25
        +1
        if you shoot for example from a pocket, the sleeve will remain there.
        and they won’t find anyone.
        and not a fact, dear, that you will not be shot.
        and if from the powers that be, someone will shoot at you, such as representatives of the golden youth, then it is not a fact that they will not blame you for the conflict.
      2. Oleg56.ru
        Oleg56.ru 5 February 2014 10: 25
        +1
        And you will not return the killed person.
      3. IRBIS
        IRBIS 5 February 2014 10: 56
        +2
        Quote: rereture
        There will be a bullet-cartridge case, that is, it will not be difficult to calculate the owner who shot you

        Interestingly, why the hell is the dead man the name of the one who "shot" him? And, most importantly, how will this surname be conveyed to the endured brains?
        1. rereture
          rereture 5 February 2014 15: 03
          0
          PULE-cartridge case, not only cartridge cases, but also bullets.
    2. intsurfer
      intsurfer 5 February 2014 09: 06
      +3
      >> In the US, hundreds of people die a year simply from accidental shots
      But the joke is that there are more casual victims from the actions of the police than from the actions of ordinary citizens. And citizens kill 2 times more criminals than policemen. But this is what I read.

      And here is what I myself saw on a business trip to Israel - full of armed people, not counting the police and the army. One man walked around the office with a pistol on his side - he MUST carry it with him constantly and does not even have the right to put it in a safe. According to the rules, he has the right to use the device only to prevent a terrorist attack. However, the pistol is on its side and it is loaded with live ammunition, not condoms. At the request of some dubious colleagues, he covered him with a shirt, but did not take it off.
      1. DimaJastrebov
        DimaJastrebov 5 February 2014 09: 21
        +5
        dear, killing by anyone is not a joke. it is a tragedy.
        I personally don’t want bullets flying through the streets.
        I’m a participant in two military campaigns, I can handle weapons, but in civilian life I don’t have any weapons and I don’t need any - not a rifled, not a short-barreled, or a hunting one. I do fine without him, and I’m not going to shoot at anyone. for criminals there is a police.
    3. alicante11
      alicante11 5 February 2014 09: 07
      0
      Gopnik, knowing that you are not unarmed and can react faster, just shoot at you, and then calmly check your pockets.


      It’s one thing to be caught sitting for a year, and another for 15-20 years.
      1. DimaJastrebov
        DimaJastrebov 5 February 2014 09: 16
        +5
        when the drug dealer needs a dose, he will not think how old they will give him. will go hunting. and not the fact that you will not get in his way.
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 5 February 2014 09: 22
          0
          Narkolyga will not buy legal weapons. Well, no matter how.
          1. DimaJastrebov
            DimaJastrebov 5 February 2014 09: 29
            0
            the narkolyga will find someone who is less complete, will approach from behind, with a brick on the head of the bale - and now the trunk is with him, hunting is already easier than with a brick.
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 5 February 2014 09: 46
              0
              Well, he can do it now, but he doesn’t.
              1. DimaJastrebov
                DimaJastrebov 5 February 2014 10: 07
                +1
                since the gopniks don’t do that, and everything is fine and calm))))) - so why do you need a trunk ??????
                1. DuraLexSedLex.
                  DuraLexSedLex. 5 February 2014 10: 28
                  +4
                  The trunk is needed and should be. It's like with a condom, let it be and it is not needed, than it is needed, but it is not). My trauma "helped" me 2 times, I am not in the same build to be able to stand 2m or 3m, or one The presence of weapons simply equalizes the chances of the strong and the weak, the problem is that it works in both directions. Maybe a strong man was an ordinary hard worker, but a weak thug with a barrel. Well, it happens on the contrary, a strong man, an athlete and a weak girl, but with a pistol in pocket.
                  But I still think that with current legislation the use of weapons for self-defense is a 100% time limit.
                2. alicante11
                  alicante11 5 February 2014 16: 57
                  0
                  So they normally cause trouble without trunks ... And it's like, it's called "pinned up and minus? Kindergarten in the nursery group :)
          2. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov 5 February 2014 10: 35
            +1
            Quote: alicante11
            Narkolyga will not buy legal weapons. Well, no matter how.

            He will take it from you, and then five more will fall from your trunk.
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 5 February 2014 17: 01
              0
              Will not pick up if able to use. By the way, this post was turned to me in vain, I’m rather for a non-lethal weapon.
    4. Walk
      Walk 5 February 2014 10: 09
      +1
      I agree completely.
    5. ikken
      ikken 5 February 2014 11: 03
      +6
      Armed citizens themselves detain criminals who try to commit a robbery:

      www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hu0v_9Q-NY

      “A black guy named James Johnson decided to raid pharmacies in Phoenix, Arizona, in order to obtain oxycodine, a pain reliever used as a drug ... washed away ... Two hours later, he showed up at another pharmacy, where, threatening a pregnant employee with a barrel, handed her a note with the name of the drug, when suddenly, unexpectedly, another employee appeared with a weapon ... he had to wash away ... He decided to try his luck in the third Once again poking a pistol at an employee of another pharmacy, he demanded the entire supply of painkillers, but one of the clients managed to run away and call for help ... at the exit they were met by ordinary but armed citizens who made him throw down their weapons and lie on the floor , after which the police have already arrived ... the police, in spite of the fact that the crimes were committed at short intervals and in the same area, could neither independently detain the criminal, norprevent crimes. But in two out of three cases, the crimes were prevented, and in one of them, the criminal was detained by ordinary citizens. "

      16.12.2012/XNUMX/XNUMX Jesus Manuel Garcia started shooting at the San Antonio Cinema. He was shot dead with personal weapons by a former policeman Lisa Castellano, who worked in a movie theater that day.

      11.12.2012/XNUMX/XNUMX Jacob Roberts opened fire at a Clackamas County mall, Oregon, killing two and wounding another man before one of Nick Meli's visitors pointed his gun at him. After that, the attacker stopped shooting and fled. Nick Meli did not open fire, afraid to get into others.

      27.05.2010/357/XNUMX New York Mills, New York, USA. Abraham Dickan walked into a local store with a .XNUMX magnum and a firing list of store employees. Immediately after the shooting began, he was killed with a personal weapon by a former police officer, Donald J. Moore. The attacker managed to wound one employee of the store.

      25.11.2013/XNUMX/XNUMX Seattle, bus passengers independently detained an armed robber before police arrived.

      I do not presume to balance what is more - the harm from permitting the carrying of weapons, or the benefits. But everything is far from as clear as you wrote. Most likely, almost nothing will change. All positive and negative points are leveled. The only thing you can certainly shoot in the dash is not only pneumatics. =)
    6. DMB-78
      DMB-78 5 February 2014 18: 53
      0
      Quote: DimaJastrebov
      it will also be in the gopota

      and this weapon it will take away from the law-abiding venture in the evening on a dark lane hoping that it is protected by a weapon
  • kaktus
    kaktus 5 February 2014 08: 53
    +2
    Just. Son's companion is a registered hunter, a gun at home in a safe. as expected. The district police officer came to check how the gun is stored, opens a safe ... And on his back is 8 kg of Maine Coon with claws and teeth! Conclusion of the precinct: - Yes, the weapon is in good hands! smile
    Maybe to get a four-legged weapon?
    1. DuraLexSedLex.
      DuraLexSedLex. 5 February 2014 10: 34
      0
      Get a dog, depending on the breed, it can not only bite, but also gobble) Although the Maine Coon is not bad, it is not a guard dog, but still a mousetrap, albeit a big one)
      1. rereture
        rereture 5 February 2014 10: 59
        0
        I have an allergy to dogs, I live in a rented apartment, just like that.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. PSih2097
          PSih2097 5 February 2014 17: 16
          +2
          Quote: rereture
          I have an allergy to dogs, I live in a rented apartment, just like that.

          So get yourself a taipan ...
    2. RBLip
      RBLip 5 February 2014 14: 19
      +2
      Quote: kaktus
      Maybe to get a four-legged weapon?

      Quote: rereture
      I have an allergy to dogs, I live in a rented apartment,

      Lord! get a crocodile! and you don’t need trunks wink
  • demotivator
    demotivator 5 February 2014 08: 54
    +1
    Quote: f4b2
    For me personally, the concept of a citizen and a layman is different.

    Right. For me too. The average man, and most of them today, are mostly passive. They will kill him, but he will stupidly wait for the authorities and to save him. A citizen takes care of himself, not forgetting about the interests of the state. The difference is subtle, but you can notice it - it is in the civic sense of responsibility for the country. The townsfolk are irresponsible. About the same as between a resident and a tenant-tenant.
  • Serega Valentinovich
    Serega Valentinovich 5 February 2014 09: 01
    +2
    As someone wrote correctly, I do not want to consider my compatriots dumber, more aggressive, etc. etc. American people, more than once I read about our compatriots who went abroad and immediately grew up with a huge amount of weapons, well, men like weapons and want to have what to do with this and not once that they had bloody baths in the streets of cities, people own their own , go to shooting ranges, shoot at targets, hold a gun by the bed in the bedside table and die from old age. Beauty is when there is nothing superfluous in the subject, and so a weapon, in addition to all of the above characteristics, is beautiful for many, including me, for good reason, it’s not for nothing that they hang it on a wall. I want Glock.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 5 February 2014 09: 01
    +2
    Again, the people were flooded with complexes that take everyone and shoot.

    Korotkostvl has not yet protected anyone from being hit by a mount on a stupid interpretation, but the difference between a knife and a WEAPON is enormous, the mere fact of having a weapon provokes its use.
  • Nitarius
    Nitarius 5 February 2014 09: 01
    -2
    I'M AGAINST !!! to WEAPONS for sale!
    Explicitly propaganda from the West! LIBERALS need themselves to set the walls!
    Liberals will wait - Their law AGAINST THEM AND APPLY TO STREETS!
  • SlavaS
    SlavaS 5 February 2014 09: 04
    0
    Pistols and revolvers to the people
    Mikhail Goldreer, is it not enough for you that one late geographer?
  • Vadim-Skeptic
    Vadim-Skeptic 5 February 2014 09: 15
    +3
    But seriously, I'm for a personal rifled short-barreled weapon. Of course, with the appropriate control, shooting infrastructure, etc.
    On the issue of wearing and using self-defense - the majority of normal men who decide to buy weapons will be ready to control, use and bear responsibility for their weapons and use, and for this we need a culture of handling weapons that cannot be acquired without appropriate practice.
    To tighten the issuance of a driver’s license, I would also support and introduce the issuance of licenses for the purchase and use of vehicles.
  • zmeigavrila
    zmeigavrila 5 February 2014 10: 10
    +7
    I own rubber rubber for 4 years. During this period I used it once against a dog (although it would be necessary against its owner). The second time I was on a business trip in another city in conflict with a group of local residents. There were enough demonstrations. Separated without damage. A man should be able to defend yourself, your property and loved ones.
  • DuraLexSedLex.
    DuraLexSedLex. 5 February 2014 10: 18
    +4
    I am a supporter of weapons and short-barrels, BUT in no case should they be sold with SUCH legislation as ours. I think you need to remove this vile line about "On the limit of necessary defense"? we must first hone the legislation, and then start polemics about a specific type of weapon!
  • Oleg56.ru
    Oleg56.ru 5 February 2014 10: 21
    +1
    The trouble is not that we have drinkers, boors on the road and others, but that the above-mentioned comrades, when adopting a law on weapons, will simply buy certificates for its acquisition. Type on the Internet: "buy a weapon permit" and you will be given a bunch of addresses where you can buy them. This is the worst thing.
    1. rereture
      rereture 5 February 2014 10: 39
      +2
      That's when you buy a license on the Internet, then say, I repeat, everything can be on the Internet. I won’t be surprised if the search engine displays your message.

      It is a pity that people invent problems for themselves and impose them on others. Do not want do not buy xs.
      And it turns out, I don’t need a car, and you don’t buy it. Suddenly you kill someone, or they’ll steal from you, and they will kill someone.
  • polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 5 February 2014 10: 24
    +3
    I am a hunter with 30 years of experience, I have both smooth-bore and rifled weapons. I agree that in some regions of Russia (in the North Caucasus, for example), a short-barrel for safety and at home will not hurt, and as for the law on weapons or on the limits of necessary defense, I think that everything is presented somehow vaguely, the one who goes to kill knows why he is going, - therefore, with him to the fullest extent of the law! And if they climb into the yard to me, burst into the house (obviously they did not come to drink tea!), Then the necessary limits of self-defense of oneself beloved, their relatives and friends simply need to be expanded! Otherwise, where is the same logic, a person must respect himself, in this case the postulate "if you hit on the left cheek, turn the right one" - I think is not acceptable.
  • tank64rus
    tank64rus 5 February 2014 10: 35
    +2
    In general, the dispute is incomprehensible. The conversation is about the RIGHT TO PURCHASE, not the mandatory purchase of weapons. In the Baltics, Moldova there is a similar law and nothing even street crime has decreased. The fact that the law on self-defense needs to be changed is true, because as long as it works in favor of crime. And yet our entire "elite", including gentlemen of the deputies, is not badly armed, in particular, some have several award guns. Recently, one of the police generals urged them to moderate their needs. I don't even want to write about crime and the Caucasus. Moreover, how many illegal barrels are already on hand, these are hundreds of thousands, and this is not a Makarov from which an ordinary citizen can get from a distance of 10-15 meters, a traumatic person can kill or cripple up to 5 meters, but military weapons are shot back and entered into the register for bullets and sleeve. Well, so far we have it.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 5 February 2014 11: 05
    -1
    Family protection is five. By law, the sole owner is obliged to keep the weapon in an inaccessible place, including for family members. What we got the other day in Moscow. Dad, in a fashionable trend, bought weapons in order to protect the family naturally. He showed his son where the keys to the safe, or the code from the lock, just in case, suddenly "the family" would need to be protected from "criminals and cops". Judging by the results of the shooting, they sonny, dad approached the matter responsibly and taught him not to shoot badly. The result, a heap of corpses, broken destinies and families. The son will come either to the bunk or to the durka. Dad will have enough of this, but it will be clear there will be a lot of other things, and from his wife "nafig you bought these rifles", and from other different ones. Plus the victims and their families. Out of the blue, life collapsed in at least three families. How many heads will roll in the permitting and supervising bodies, too, because on this basis there will be divorces and children without fathers. And all because one MDAK decided to "protect the family." And then they explain to us that more weapons should be sold to everyone, and freely. At the same time, those who call in all seriousness believe that they will only sell weapons to them, they are normal, and not to everyone else, it is obvious that there are only fools, cops and criminals around. Then, of course, everyone is very surprised how it happened, how it was with the injuries. It seems to me that the free sale of weapons is promoted by people who expect to have their own gesheft from this sale. There is no other way to explain it, there are no normal reasons.
    1. Rodriques
      Rodriques 5 February 2014 11: 12
      +7
      Statement text:

      On Saturday 17.10.2009/XNUMX/XNUMX robbery was committed against me and my family in my own apartment and I was forced to use firearms for self-defense.
      I turned the lock and all three flew into my room, brandishing a gun. When they saw the gun, they bounced back to the front door, after which the Dagestan and the husband of the neighbor Simonov A.V. they unanimously declared that they would kill me for it now, and they would rape my wife ... and that I would not be able to shoot them because, in their opinion, I would be a person of a non-traditional sexual orientation. I shouted to them that I had called the police and that everyone would have stood on the ground before their arrival, at that moment the Daghestani pointed a gun at me, I shouted that I would shoot if he did not stop. He did not listen and flicked the fuse on the gun, after which I fired a warning shot up. Such a shot did not represent a danger, because we live on the top floor and I aimed the trunk towards a large technological window in the attic to avoid a rebound.

      Three attackers rushed to run, he threw the gun on the stairs.

      This is an extract from a criminal case.
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 5 February 2014 12: 13
        0
        That's not clear, the article is called
        Pistols and revolvers to the people
        Here is a case about three fools with criminal intentions and what is typical with a gun, in panic, they flee from one citizen with a legally bought gun. And this, as it were, confirms that these same pistols and revolvers need to be sold to the people, where is the logic? Those who need to defend themselves against crime, buy legally guns, one shot is enough against three bandits armed with a pistol. You can also oppose the free sale of pistols to criminals. Then most likely they will come to you with one gun instead of three.
  • Rodriques
    Rodriques 5 February 2014 11: 06
    +3
    Eh .. I remember all the circles of hell that had to go before acquiring a smooth-bore, I even wanted to spit, certificates, studies, bribes)) But I still received it, bought it, now I remember with a smile and am morally satisfied that there is something to protect myself in the home if that.
    But regarding the permission of the population of short-barreled rifled weapons, I am categorically against it. Do you want to take a hunting one, but with combat pistols there is nothing for a normal person to do on the street, we don’t live in a harlem.
  • saag
    saag 5 February 2014 11: 49
    +2
    Prohibit injuries too, the gopnik attacks the girl, she puts him out of the gun, at the court the gopnik says he wanted to meet, and the girl shot him, the girl is found guilty and sentenced, the gopnik attacks the pensioner, and the pensioner brings him down some Nagan, the gopnik then declares that he wanted to ask how to get to the library, and they shot him, the pensioner is found guilty and sent to the zone. well, or conditionally by virtue of age and past merits, and so on, this has been happening and is happening, it’s not necessary to aggravate and imitate America
  • Kuvabatake
    Kuvabatake 5 February 2014 11: 50
    +2
    Argue, do not argue, but the law "On weapons", and even more so the law on the necessary self-defense must be revised ...
  • KBACYPA
    KBACYPA 5 February 2014 11: 55
    +9
    Well, and after. Although this will not convince the skeptics, the supporters agree.
  • brn521
    brn521 5 February 2014 12: 26
    +5
    Article plus. Not for the conclusion, but for posing good and right questions. A full and healthy people not only can have weapons, they must have weapons. To fear external and internal enemies. To protect your home, your family and your country. That's just such a people-a rarity. But I would like us to become like that. And I have no illusions about the state we are in - it’s unlikely that now arms on hand will help us build a full and healthy society. but shooting with a bunch of victims in addition will begin unambiguously.

    Quote: alicante11
    And how do you prove that you used weapons in the wasteland against 5 hooligans, if you failed only one of them? Are there any witnesses left?

    Witnesses stayed. These are the remaining 4 hooligans. Their lawyer will convincingly prove that you were a bully.

    Quote: alicante11
    The problem here is the lack of such a safe "non-lethal" weapon.

    I agree. In my city, the problem is as follows. City-forming enterprises have come to complete insignificance. As a result, a sickly stratum of the population has formed, the main occupation of which is to get together with companies, drink and inject, look for where to get money for continued existence in the same vein. Occasionally passersby suffer, who are crippled or killed. Disassembly periodically occurs about who owes whom and how much. Including with the use of injuries.
    The conclusions are approximately the following.
    The first. Judging by the use of so-called injuries (which sometimes even manage to overcome the penetrating wound of the abdominal cavity), the supply of firearms to the masses in large numbers will not lead to anything good. There will definitely be shooting, and there will be many.
    Second. The police do not guarantee anyone safety. If you are being killed, try to leave as many traces as possible, preferably bloody ones. The more traces, the easier it will be for the police to avenge you.
    Third. The population needs massive weapons. This weapon must be non-lethal, but effective. What will be the suggestions?
    Is that the theme of gas weapons to develop. The task is to immediately knock down everyone who is close enough. Including yourself, it’s possible, but this is not so important, and will even serve as proof that you are either a masochist or you are really pinned down. Well, or at least temporarily deprive of sight. Here for me is the ideal of self-defense in the current conditions. Let the police then deal with us, not the surgeon. I can’t think of anything but gas. The Americans came across a phenomenon like a hand grenade. Not a miserable sizzling can, but something like a single shot of high power, even beating against a strong wind over a fairly large area. If surrounded - you can gasp under your feet. I don’t know what to start with. What is now legally sold is often pathetic trash. The effectiveness of such funds is limited by the legislation of Russia to complete insignificance. But there are legends transmitted through friends, usually about spray cans of the 90s. That there were also cans that led to a quick and lasting effect, unlike the current ones. This is about what we need.
    As an option - do nothing at all :).
    1. SlavaS
      SlavaS 5 February 2014 13: 51
      0
      Full and healthy people
      where to find one now?
      1. brn521
        brn521 6 February 2014 11: 16
        0
        I'll put a plus for sober thinking. For example, I can't even see such people in the mirror. In my opinion, the basis of a people is not ideas and not words, but something more, underlying and inherited. And the indicator of what kind of person you were are not even your children, but your grandchildren. What do we have now? It often turns out that loud-mouthed peasants who talk about the people and so on do not care about the genus as an integral part of the concept of "people". They change women like socks, and if they get married, they get divorced after a while. They don't have children, and if they do, they leave them. If they do not quit, then they trust their education to school, the media and so on. As a result, their children still become an element of modern civilization, where it is no longer about the people, but about a well-managed amorphous mass.
    2. alicante11
      alicante11 5 February 2014 14: 50
      +1
      What will be the suggestions?


      I suggested something like a throwing stun gun. Most likely - pneumatic. But without spray, but with pre-pumping. Revolver on 5-6 cartridges. The caliber is large enough to fit this mini-shocker inside the bullet. Range and slaughter are not needed, a maximum of meters on the 20, in order to be able, say, moving away, to shoot from several people until they reach you. The pool is a capacitor with a charge of electricity. Two types of action are desirable - pain and muscle contraction, to, say, turn off the hand so that it does not wave, or the leg so as not to catch up. Something like that...
      1. brn521
        brn521 6 February 2014 11: 24
        0
        To stabilize the impact of a stun gun of any design on purpose, it seems like no one has succeeded so far. Even purely on the individual effect of exposure. What kills one, the other only slows down, and even then with difficulty. In addition, it is assumed that the electrode reaches the body. In this case, why bother with electricity, it is easier to make an ampulometer. In chemicals, the effect is more stable and predictable.
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 6 February 2014 12: 08
          +1
          Hmm, manual stun guns are quite common. And I didn’t hear something about them causing irreparable harm to someone. In addition, getting to the body is not necessary. Through clothing, the stun gun is also amazing. Unless our gopota starts going to business in the OZK or wooden armor :).
    3. Same lech
      Same lech 5 February 2014 15: 10
      +2
      But there are legends transmitted through friends, usually about spray cans of the 90s. That there were also cans that led to a quick and lasting effect, unlike the current ones.


      I propose to use large portions of laxative in such cartridges, which cause inhalation or skin irritation of bowel spasms - irritable bowel syndrome in an instant
      will force both the criminal and the victim to abandon the desire to continue illegal actions; moreover, for the next few hours no one will be able to go somewhere or do something because they will have to wash clothes and surrounding objects from the intestinal contents.
      1. brn521
        brn521 6 February 2014 11: 37
        0
        It only assumes that we are going to scare some punks. As in the message above, where the Dagestanis used the pistol as a scarecrow, they flicked the safety catch and then threw it when they considered the situation uncontrollable. Such a trifle as instant diarrhea will not really stop a real criminal. Yes, Christmas trees, they are sometimes not stopped even by a couple of bullets stuck in the belly. In general, in my opinion, temporary blindness is more effective. Only it should work instantly, and not like some of the current legitimate spray cans, the effect of "a speck in the eye", and the burning itself begins almost in a couple of minutes.
  • Santor
    Santor 5 February 2014 12: 36
    +9
    How many spits and kicks to the author because of his last name ... Born in Kostroma, in Russia and lives .... Works on the site http://vpk-news.ru/authors/1090

    On the topic ... Let's remember a girl in the Moscow metro who used injuries to protect friends ... Is she sitting? He’s sitting ... And no lawyers were able to argue the existing Law and no petitions helped.
    Digging a story. Until 1918 of the year in the Russian Empire, fighting !! pistols and revolvers were sold to citizens with the right to wear, and the Law regulating this process was. Many in power have premium weapons and love to shoot even at banks. But that is their privilege. A type of mob is useless. Therefore, among the opponents of weapons, the bulk are siloviki, people directly associated with weapons.

    until 1969, police and army officers had the right to carry permanent weapons, before someone in police uniform did not shoot Brezhnev’s motorcade. Time has passed - but even to this day, army and police officers (outside the service) are forbidden to carry weapons ... Bullshit and paradox ... The chiefs themselves are protected by personal guards and carry weapons, but the problems are of the lowest level ... And then suddenly what kind of policeman is out he’ll shoot the wrong bandit - who should answer, eh? By the way, according to statistics, the number of police officers killed by bandits is more than the opposite, and significant.
    1. DMB-78
      DMB-78 5 February 2014 19: 11
      0
      Quote: Santor
      before someone in police uniform did not shoot at Brezhnev’s motorcade.

      not really yours. weapons were banned after frequent cases of theft of weapons from police officers
  • Santor
    Santor 5 February 2014 12: 50
    +9
    The idea that big people are deciding the fate of the country, and that the population should stand on the sidelines somewhere, is our main problem. Gradually, this problem is being overcome, awareness of the importance of public-private partnership comes, but this awareness has not yet fully reached the fundamental issues of security and weapons. This is the reason for such an abnormally high level of violent crime in Russia, many times higher than the level of criminal violence in neighboring countries. For the same reason, systemic problems are observed in our military-industrial complex, which is experiencing aging staff and a lack of funds. Hence the problem of the shortage of draftees in the Armed Forces, while in some countries the volunteers themselves are the backbone of the national armed reserve. In the same Germany (daughter studied at the university), her friends are in line to go to serve in the Bundes ....

    After all, if, for example, we compare the scale of ammunition and arms production in Russia and the USA, the lack of balance will immediately catch the eye. Every second American family is already armed today, they have about 300 million small arms in their country only for the use of citizens. There are even more than a thousand combat-ready tanks in private ownership (for comparison: all the armed forces of Ukraine have 700 tanks, Mexico - 45), more than 12 billions of various cartridges are produced annually in the United States. There are not enough local production capacities, so this year private arms companies from the United States signed contracts for the supply of a billion rounds of ammunition for the needs of the civilian market from Russia alone. The paradox of the situation is that today it is largely American citizens who allow our arms enterprises to stay afloat (up to 40 percent of Izhmash’s civilian products are exported to the United States), especially if we subtract government orders from our calculations, this is an unstable phenomenon, the cycle of which led our The military-industrial complex to the strongest blow in the 90 years.

    The system of shooting clubs in the United States accustoms the population to the culture of weapons, and those who have personal use of short barrels MUST be a club once a week for classes, and not just shoot. Classes are conducted by psychologists, police officers, sometimes they invite employees of the FBI, prosecutors ...

    And it’s not so simple in the same USA with obtaining a license ... In some states carrying weapons is prohibited, in others it is forbidden to carry a charged one - that is, a clip should not be inserted ...

    My personal attitude - the LAW should be, and it is the LAW that should regulate who can get the right to wear, or keep the smoothbore. Why am I, having served nearly 30 of years not at all in the infantry, have less confidence in the eyes of the State than the 20 summer obsolete in police uniform?
    1. mark7
      mark7 6 February 2014 16: 07
      0
      Quote: Santor
      than a 20 year old police officer in uniform?

      because he is in shape, in the service and under control, and you have already served
    2. nerd.su
      nerd.su 6 February 2014 16: 59
      0
      Quote: Santor
      The LAW should regulate who can get the right to wear, or keep the barrel smooth.

      Well, the law also regulates. Who's stopping you? If you are not blind and are not registered with a narcologist / psychiatrist, the procedure will not be very difficult.
  • UpgradeComplete
    UpgradeComplete 5 February 2014 13: 02
    +4
    Speaking of weapons ... I read not so long ago someone's (I no longer remember the author) fabrications about allowing myself to be carried. So he wrote that the Nord-Ost in the event of the legalization of weapons would be simply impossible. Since there were 40 terrorists and there were more than 500 spectators in the hall, imagine what would happen to these terrorists who came under fire from 300 barrels, crossfire? so there are positive aspects to legalization, but unfortunately there are fools from schools too ...
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 5 February 2014 17: 09
      +1
      Quote: UpgradeComplete
      Since there were 40 terrorists and there were more than 500 spectators in the hall, imagine what would happen to these terrorists who came under fire from 300 barrels, crossfire? so there are positive aspects to legalization, but unfortunately there are fools from schools too ...

      and how many viewers would die from a friendly crossfire of 300 trunks?
      1. Cynic
        Cynic 5 February 2014 17: 17
        -1
        Quote: PSih2097
        how many viewers would die from a friendly cross

        I think less than from friendly gas .
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. nerd.su
      nerd.su 5 February 2014 17: 45
      0
      How many cases of mass executions prevented with personal weapons in the US? Executions from legally acquired weapons, by the way. Specific cases, preferably with links to American sources?
      1. Cynic
        Cynic 5 February 2014 17: 50
        0
        Quote: bot.su
        . Specific cases, preferably with links to American sources?

        You will not find this with us.
        In one of the discussions on VO, such links were laid out.
        Seek, and you will find, crush, and be opened

        hi
        1. nerd.su
          nerd.su 5 February 2014 17: 59
          +1
          Yes, this is not found in the United States. There are no such cases. The Israelis, however, cited information about how people with weapons urinate terrorists there. But they say that Merkava is the best tank in the world ... And, in general, they all become Rambams after the IDF ...
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 5 February 2014 18: 41
            0
            Quote: bot.su
            Yes, this is not found in the United States.

            I won’t tear the shirt on my chest, claiming IS .
            everyone sees what he wants to see

            Only in today's USA are many of your like-minded people in the State Department. Doesn't it suggest any thoughts?
            1. nerd.su
              nerd.su 6 February 2014 17: 12
              0
              How am I missing such an attack? laughing
              Quote: Cynic

              Only in today's USA are many of your like-minded people in the State Department. Doesn't it suggest any thoughts?

              Suggests! This shows that there are still sane people in the states. laughing
              1. Cynic
                Cynic 6 February 2014 18: 01
                +1
                Quote: bot.su
                Suggests! It shows

                Kidding ?
                Joke, joke, if you live in the States, there really are quite a lot of ordinary sane people. Now, if you are in Geyropa, then soon the question of a personal firearm will become very topical.
                In Russia, the question of personal weapons, in my opinion, is rather a question of turning a layman into a citizen. But here you have a question of survival, although, maybe in Switzerland vegetate ?
                Here, by the way, is an example of the organization of firearms on hand.
                Or, is there a developed state and, accordingly, conscious citizens, and then bastard Russia and, accordingly, blue-legged do not understand who?
                1. nerd.su
                  nerd.su 6 February 2014 18: 59
                  0
                  It’s actually written to me where I live. More specifically than yours. Not the Urals, but Perm. Sorry, I won’t show the address. But it’s written not Omsk, but Siberia ...
                  I don’t know about Europe with the states; I’ve only been to Africa from all over the world once, but there are firearms there, as we have after the Great Patriotic War. Yes, plus for hunting bows are still widely used.

                  Is it problematic to buy a gun from us? Why can a gun turn a layman into a citizen, but not IL-54 or Saiga-12? How does a weapon develop a civic position?
                  1. Cynic
                    Cynic 6 February 2014 20: 05
                    0
                    Quote: bot.su
                    I actually say where I live

                    Yes, somehow the flag more attention. Definitely not manageable, except for this essno. (I have the EU regularly determined)
                    So in life we ​​are all _ Hailing from the USSR, even born after. Just a couple of generations for sure. Depending on the continent of residence.
                    Quote: bot.su
                    How does a weapon develop a civic position?

                    Personal, wearable.
                    Do you think there is a difference?
                    You still remember those who have a karamultuk hanging on a carpet on their house.
                    hi
                    1. nerd.su
                      nerd.su 6 February 2014 20: 18
                      0
                      And what, I do not have the Russian flag?

                      Quote: Cynic

                      Personal, wearable.
                      Do you think there is a difference?

                      Black, oily. There is a difference?
                      With a civilian stance and weapons to decide.
                      1. Cynic
                        Cynic 6 February 2014 20: 37
                        0
                        Quote: bot.su
                        And what, I do not have the Russian flag?

                        At the moment you have a flag due to the presence of a checkmark in the profile settings.
                        Quote: bot.su
                        With a civilian stance and weapons to decide.

                        So everything has been defined for a very long time _
                        "No slave should keep or carry a weapon unless he has a written order from the master or is in the presence of the master."
                      2. nerd.su
                        nerd.su 6 February 2014 21: 51
                        +1
                        Quote: Cynic
                        At the moment you have a flag due to the presence of a checkmark in the profile settings.

                        Ah, it’s so simple here. Click on the nickname, in the window that appears, click on the latest comments and that's it. Comments of the participant with flags at the location appear.

                        Leave the slaves alone. Smoothbore can be purchased by any healthy person, rifled - after five years of using smoothbore. What slavery is there. If you are going to fight with the state for your rights using weapons, then saiga-12 will be better than any pistol. You can also buy optics, NVD, a knife, a gas spray, an injury or an electric shocker, body armor, a gas mask, a pair of uniform sets, berets, a backpack, a sleeping bag, a tent, a bowler hat, a flask, a sapper shovel, even a helmet or helmet, if you try. Navigator, compass, maps, walkie-talkies are also selling now. And army dry rations can be found. You can gather a group of dissatisfied and go fight for your rights, if you so want. Yes, only against armored personnel carriers and internal troops with helicopters does nothing help. And even if you have saiga rifled and pistols are real. And you go to cut down the forest. Maybe buy a chainsaw right away?
                        Civil rights are best fought peacefully. Civil disobedience, a terrible thing. If 90% of workers will not go to work or will not do anything at the workplace, then no authority will stand. Only now we are not living so badly so that this can become a reality.
                      3. Cynic
                        Cynic 6 February 2014 22: 30
                        -1
                        Quote: bot.su
                        If you are going to fight with the state for your rights using weapons, then saiga-12 will be better

                        Hmm, you about Thomas, and you about Yeryoma!
                        We are talking about increasing the self-awareness of a person through the presence of his personal portable firearm, and you are talking about the fight for, God forgive me, rights.
                        Somehow you are fixated on the imperative _ Weapons - the struggle with power.
                        C why?
                        Hostile whirlwinds blow over us?

                        wink
                      4. nerd.su
                        nerd.su 7 February 2014 00: 27
                        0
                        To increase personal identity, it is better to introduce sambo into the school course as a compulsory subject. A comprehensively developed citizen may not need a short barrel then.

                        They blow, they blow smile That's just at this stage there is no one to support. Therefore, neutrality.
            2. V. Salama
              V. Salama 7 February 2014 01: 22
              +1
              Quote: bot.su
              Why can a gun turn a layman into a citizen, but not IL-54 or Saiga-12? How does a weapon develop a civic position?
              You need to know the history of the question - who is a citizen, and who is not, and where did it come from. In ancient Rome, in order to become a citizen it was necessary to serve in the army and start a family. In Soviet times, one of the leading personality traits was “citizenship”, the essence of which was the conscious and active fulfillment of civic duties and civic duty to the state, society and people, the wise use of their civil rights, strict observance of the Constitution, and rules of hostel; in readiness to fight against violation by individual citizens of the rule of law, failure to fulfill their sacred duties (Brief pedagogical dictionary of the propagandist. Politizdat, 1988). In Soviet times, the need for armed self-defense was refuted ideologically, as they did not have the corresponding phenomena in reality, which was, of course, declarative, but it should be recognized that such phenomena (situations) were really extremely rare, episodic and local. For this reason, the problem in question did not cause contradictions in public consciousness. Now we do not have ideology and cannot exist according to the Constitution and the entire population of the country is considered citizens, while some of them are officially affected by civil rights, most of them are unofficially and there is a part of the population, which, according to the guarantor (“everyone cannot be equal before the law ”) - it turns out to be especially civil. And the highest value in our country is declared not property, but property. But, we then perfectly understand that the main property of a person is his life and health, and they explained to us popularly about which person (the social layer) he is talking about and who already has a legal right to a short barrel. I do not want to seem boring - here, with many initial premises, I should have decided, this is the modern definition of the state, the elite and much more. In general, it’s clear that we live in a sociopolitical system in which, by definition, “man to man is a wolf,” where issues of public safety (public, food, any) are solved on a residual basis (law enforcement will always be, and should (it's normal) !) First of all, to defend the state, as the Minister of Internal Affairs Nurgaliyev said before his resignation) and this is in conditions when in Russia in fact the largest percentage of police in the world among the population.
              1. V. Salama
                V. Salama 7 February 2014 01: 26
                0
                Now in arms. Since we are talking about the right to armed self-defense, every means has its own means. What does the Saiga hunting weapon, IZH-54 have to do with it? Will you go to the theater with him? If I have not lagged behind life, then even on a forest road in the closed season with folded arms in a case and without cartridges - you are already a poacher, with all the ensuing consequences.
                Here we should recall the ancient Chinese wisdom: "The people are revolting not because of a bad life, but because of an alarming life ..." In tsarist Russia, Stolypin and the entire elite of that time did not even think of offending fellow citizens with a ban on acquiring self-defense weapons! According to Stolypin: "Laws should be written for the sober and the strong, and not for the drunk and the weak."
                And yet, it is a well-known unconditional historical rule: weapons should not be accessible to children, mentally abnormal, prisoners, slaves and the population of the occupied territories. So, we cannot be weapons because we are assigned to these five categories of the population. For example, there are statements:
                1. In Russia, men do not grow up and remain constantly children. The journalist and writer Valery Panyushkin in his new book, “Rublevka Players handbook”, reveals the ideas of the elite: “... If one person has more than two cars, then this is most likely a frivolous person: something like Timati or TV presenter Vladimir Solovyov, who is eternal a boy, although the father of seven children .... ";
                2. what is there to comment if, at the end of his life, even Leo Tolstoy came to the conclusion that humanity has gone mad;
                3. If you talk with veterans of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, then the quintessence of their reasoning will be that only those who have not yet been seated are seated;
                4. this power went to power under the slogans of its apologists that "we all need to squeeze out a slave." Judging by the rating of the article, we still have to crush and crush, because, to paraphrase the words of V.M. Shukshin, we seem to be not "ready not to bear the humiliation";
                5. here, too, there are relevant opinions, but too voluminous - so I’ll miss it for now.
                The strangest thing is that we value ourselves that way, judging by the comments. What kind of citizens are we after that? I don’t know which group you belong to me, but I don’t want to relate myself to any of them and admit it as a fact if the state recognizes my right to armed self-defense.
                1. nerd.su
                  nerd.su 7 February 2014 03: 30
                  +1
                  I thought I had one insomnia ... It turns out no smile

                  You generalize and simplify the conditions for obtaining citizenship in ancient Rome.
                  In the Soviet Union, situations in which armed self-defense was needed were extremely rare. But even in modern Russia for most of the population they often did not. With a kind word, you can still resolve most situations. Most of the hot young people, mostly of a liberal appearance, whose kind word is not confirmed by their determination to protect themselves with the help of physical strength, talk about the constant threat to life and health.
                  Nevertheless, a class (social group) of people who need protection has indeed formed. And such protection exists, options are law enforcement agencies, private security companies, a criminal "roof". The desire to have a pistol in this group arises either from greed or from pathological egoism. Society is not obligated to satisfy their desires.
                  Loss of rights in a capitalist society arises from an unequal financial situation.
                  Self-defense weapons in the Russian Empire are also not so simple. Yes, weapons were sold to the public. But there were limitations associated with its wearing and use. So duels were allowed in the Russian Empire. The procedure was complicated, but nonetheless.
                  Now the question. Saying that slaves cannot have weapons and we need to be prepared not to bear the humiliation, what do you mean? Back to the duel?
                  Or squeezing out a slave means an opportunity to fight for their rights with weapons in their hands? I outlined the prospects for armed struggle above to Comrade Cynic. In order to make such a fight real, it is necessary that serious military weapons — machine guns, ATGMs, MANPADS — at a minimum, enter the free market. Will you fight for it? If not, what kind of slave are you squeezing out of yourself? What kind of insult are you ready not to bear? Let's revive the duel. Please create a commission or a special court hearing, trying to reconcile the parties. It doesn’t work, we take duel pistols in a special weapon and shoot in the court yard in the presence of witnesses and a doctor. Korotkostvol is not needed here. So all this reasoning about slaves is nonsense! The nonsense of weak-minded people who believe that weapons will make them free. Weapons will only simplify their transition to another world.
                  Childhood irrevocably ends at 21. Dot.
                  Veterans of the Ministry of Internal Affairs know what they are talking about. Any of them have something to plant, if the statute of limitations has not come out. This work. The rest of the citizens throughout their life constantly commit at least administrative offenses. So how many times a week do you cross the road in the wrong place? Although the criminal record is generally unclear why. Not caught, not a thief. About the occupation, too, out of place, this is, in the case of Russia, conspiracy theology.
                  Korotkostvol for self-defense is self-defense by murder. In fact, this is a requirement for oneself to buy the right to kill. In the absence of witnesses, kill with impunity.

                  Oh, by the way, do you need a gun to go to the theater with him? Is it really so scary to live?
                2. V. Salama
                  V. Salama 7 February 2014 13: 07
                  0
                  Unfortunately, I'm not so persistent - I missed a dream, so I delayed the answer. If the example of Ancient Rome did not explain the idea, I will cite the example of Greece, where democracy, as a form of power (power of the people) appeared in the slave system. Only there slaves were not considered for the people.
                  Yes, it is possible that these situations “in most of the population of modern Russia they did not become more frequent,” but the conditions (philosophy) of human relations have changed significantly at all levels. In my opinion, the Cynic is right, for some reason we can’t understand each other, and each one speaks of his own.
                  And with the fact that "a kind word can still resolve most situations" and about the presence of young people, "whose kind word is not confirmed by the determination to protect themselves with the help of physical strength" can be agreed. But there are other situations as well. In addition, you acknowledge that “indeed, a class (social group) of people has emerged who need protection. And such protection exists, options are law enforcement agencies, private security companies, a criminal "roof". " ... You also admit that “defeat in rights in a capitalist society arises as a result of unequal financial situation” (although I meant the defeat in the rights of offenders to acquire weapons for up to 5 years under the Law). Do you feel contradictory in reasoning here? And why do they, the "elite", need armed protection, but ordinary citizens do not? In addition, all these private security companies, "roofs" are factors in our life - these are the same people with weapons. To the fact that “the desire to have a pistol among representatives of this group arises either from greed or from pathological egoism and society is not obliged to satisfy their desires,” I will say that their motivation is not so important for us now, but their number is significant - these are the deputies and civil servants and businessmen legally have five units of award weapons each, and no one asked the opinion of the public here at all. Here is a list of these "toys":
                3. V. Salama
                  V. Salama 7 February 2014 13: 11
                  0
                  (in the edition of the Government of the Russian Federation from 12.08.2011 N 664)
                  I. Combat Short-Bore Hand Small Arms
                  1. 5,45 mm gun PSM (6P23)
                  2. 5,45 mm pistol "Kid" OTs-26
                  3. 9 mm gun PM (56-A-125)
                  4. 9 mm PMM pistol (56-A-125M)
                  5 mm gun GSh-9 (18P6)
                  6 mm pistol PSA "Berdysh" OTs-9
                  7. 9 mm gun PY (6P35)
                  8. 9 mm gun P-96M
                  9. 9 mm pistol "Kid" OTs-21
                  10 mm Nagan revolver
                  11 mm revolver RSA "Cobalt" (OTs-9, TKB-01)
                  12 mm R-9 revolver
                  13 mm revolver "Nickel" OTs-9
                  14 mm TT pistol (7,62-A-56)
                  14 (1). 9 mm gun Glock-17 (Glock-17)
                  (Clause 14 (1) was introduced by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 12.08.2011, 664 N XNUMX)
                  14 (2). 9 mm Parabellum 08-P pistol (Parabellum 08-P)
                  (Clause 14 (2) was introduced by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 12.08.2011, 664 N XNUMX)
                  14 (3). 9 mm Beretta-92 FS pistol (Beretta-92 FS)
                  (Clause 14 (3) was introduced by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 12.08.2011, 664 N XNUMX)
                  14 (4). 9 mm gun ChZ-75 BD (CZ-75 BD)
                  (Clause 14 (4) was introduced by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 12.08.2011, 664 N XNUMX)

                  As for the "restrictions associated with its wearing and use" in the Russian Empire - I do not know what it is about. I do not speak about duels either. What does it mean "ready not to bear humiliation"? This is pulled out of a statement by Vasily Shukshin, whose opinion on this issue in a logical conclusion I have already cited on this line, I think it would be wrong to do my repost here. He certainly is not one of the "weak-minded people who believe that weapons will make them free." In addition, the weapon for a normal person always severely limits freedom. And “squeezing out a slave” does not “mean an opportunity to fight for their rights with weapons in their hands?” The Cynic was already paying attention to this. This means getting a status that does not allow you to treat yourself like slaves. Remember your own words: "... whose kind word is not confirmed by the determination to protect themselves with the help of physical strength." Here it’s not only about hooligans - they feel and put it all, for some reason, at the forefront, but also about relations with the authorities, which are the same people who are endowed with the ability to carry out violence, dictating their will, in our case, not only according to the Law but also arbitrarily. Understand that this is not about the social revolution and not the shooting of officials for any reason, but about the same notorious “kind word”, reinforced by the determination to protect what was always considered more valuable to normal people. About the simplification of the accelerated "transition to another world" here you are escalating, it’s again going back to the crazy people, we identify the possibility with reality. This you understand in your own way, as "a requirement for yourself to be able to buy the right to kill." By the way, it’s unlikely to kill a registered trunk with impunity - it’s the same as leaving fingerprints and, in addition, signing at the crime scene.
                4. V. Salama
                  V. Salama 7 February 2014 13: 13
                  0
                  I did not set myself the goal of convincing you, I tried to answer your question, the answer to which your opponent, in my opinion, considered it obvious, but something did not work out very well. Probably, we are too different, or “life” made us different. Somehow I was walking along a pedestrian crossing to the green light, and I was deliberately picked up by a jeep, which turned to red, therefore I was not injured. They made it clear "politely" that b ... lo should have time to bounce and not get confused under the wheels. It’s clear that if I have a weapon, it’s stupid to use it in this situation (although according to the Charter of the RF Armed Forces, weapons are used without warning, they just “forgot” to define the concept of “attack using a vehicle”), this is not about that, but about that probably there wouldn’t be such a situation. In Kostroma, he witnessed such a fatal case. The journalist I mentioned, Valery Panyushkin, gives an example when a businessman from Rublevka fired his driver for stopping at a red light. Since the oligarch considers himself a person who is not obliged to abide by the rules, in his understanding, living by the rules is a sucker. When you ask "... how many times a week do you cross the road in the wrong place?" and you give the right to exist to the rule “not caught, not a thief”, thereby you are trying to put me on a par with this oligarch. The reception is not new, Gozman seems to be in yet another controversy about the thieves' privatization in the country, saying that "you, too, all privatized the apartments." This position is understandable, it is not clear why you are in this position.
                  About the occupation: it would be necessary to cite facts surprisingly coinciding with the notorious directive of Allen Dulles and the wishes of Margaret Thatcher. I think in our case this is no longer necessary. We talk about different things ... the Cynic is right. And I did not claim that the gun was needed for the theater, I simply explained that, for example, you won’t go to the theater with a gun. And the fact that situations can be different and the shotgun allows you to flexibly respond to them depending on the threat, in my opinion, is obvious. Life is not scary, optimism just did not. I wanted to say - it’s scary for Russia, but I thought that it’s too much, everyone has their own Russia. And in any case, it will outlive us, in what form - this is the question.
                5. Cynic
                  Cynic 7 February 2014 14: 33
                  +1
                  Quote: V. Salama
                  Everyone has their own Russia. And in any case, it will outlive us, in what form - this is the question.

                  drinks
                  Most come from
                  The Russian is strong on three stilts - perhaps, I guess yes somehow

                  hi
                6. V. Salama
                  V. Salama 7 February 2014 14: 40
                  +1
                  Glad to the old opponent drinks I fully agree with the conclusion.
                7. Cynic
                  Cynic 7 February 2014 15: 08
                  +1
                  Quote: V. Salama
                  Glad to the old opponent
                  drinks
                  By participating in the discussion, to be honest, it began to strain a bit too simple perception of the subject.
                  It seems that the majority perceives the short-barrel law as a law restricting the sale of alcohol to minors.
                  Although there are parallels, there are.
                  Is it really so hard to understand that this is the visible part of the iceberg. Where, not like two-thirds, but nine-tenths is not visible.
                8. V. Salama
                  V. Salama 7 February 2014 15: 27
                  0
                  Quote: Cynic
                  ... to be honest, it began to strain a little too simple perception of the subject.

                  The feelings are the same, if it had not been ill, perhaps, and would not have interrupted.
                  Quote: Cynic
                  Is it really so hard to understand that this is the visible part of the iceberg.

                  They probably understand, but having their own interest (unwillingness of possible additional problems) and therefore their opinion, they try to justify it.
                9. The comment was deleted.
          2. nerd.su
            nerd.su 7 February 2014 15: 11
            0
            Your answers are contradictory and confused.
            You wrote a lot, so I’m right to the point.
            Quote: V. Salama
            This means getting a status that does not allow you to treat yourself like slaves.

            Here, it seems to me, the keywords "get status". What does it mean "not allowing himself to be treated like slaves"? Do you think the police will politely detain you if you have a gun? No, the detention will be tougher. Maybe the police will treat you more politely, respecting your status? However, do traffic police inspectors strongly respect the driver's status? The same thing. Here is the status of a deputy, a soldier, a policeman, a huntsman, I understand. And the status of "owner of a firearm"? What determines its status? I am more of a law-abiding person. And I will comply with the legal requirements of the policeman regardless of whether he has a pistol or not. The main thing is to make sure that he is a police officer. Also, without any problems, I will fulfill the legal requirements of the owner of the site while being on his territory, regardless of whether he has a trunk. So what is the advantage of being a pistol owner to its owner? If I plot illegal actions against a person, then knowing or assuming that he has a weapon, I will act accordingly. Some cite the results of a survey of American robbers, who say that they are most afraid of meeting with an armed master. The paradox is that, despite the fear, they still rob. They are not interrogated in a cafe, but in prison. If we talk about the fact that the owner of the short-barrel will not allow himself to be treated like a slave, say in the municipality or in the fire inspection, then after a couple of cases of "slave rebellion" entry into such establishments with weapons will be prohibited, and all events when the official comes to a citizen, will be accompanied by riot police. Taxpayers will pay for the riot police and the protection of officials. Do we need it? The pistol does not give any reinforcements for a good word, we are not in the wild west and now is the 21st century, not 18 or 19.
            About the "fingerprints". If the law on self-defense is brought in line with the realities of armed self-defense, then the one who survives will always be more to the right than the one who dies. If the cameras do not record or there will be witnesses. This, by the way, can lead to an increase in the death rate of witnesses and their posthumous transfer to attackers. After all, your shirt is closer to your body.
            I do not envy the deputies with their award trunks. I'm just not interested in this. In human society, despite the declared equality, some will always be more equal than others, this is an objective reality.
            When I cross the road, I always evaluate the stop, the green light there is on or some other. It must be remembered that the one who starts moving to green light can end it to red. And there are drivers for whom many of the rules on the drum drive such gentlemen and Lada and Mercedes. In general, we must remember that pedestrians in our world are divided into fast and dead.
            And in general, what is the reason for this discussion about the oligarchs? Do you think that the gun will somehow protect you from their arbitrariness? you yourself are not funny?
            Pistol will not solve human problems. The status of the owner of a pistol will not make this owner freer. He will no longer be respected by officials or accountants of the jacks.
            The gun will raise the owner’s self-esteem and the number of civilian casualties. This is hardly an equivalent exchange for society. But how glad the arms manufacturers will be.
          3. V. Salama
            V. Salama 7 February 2014 17: 42
            0
            Quote: bot.su
            Your answers are contradictory and confused.
            You wrote a lot, so I’m right to the point.

            "... they wrote a lot" is not my fault. Imagine that I will now refute your "essence" line by line, then the amount of writing will come out many times more. That is what I tried to do before, so if there is also logical confusion, then here I followed your thought.
            If the police officers decided to detain me for any reason, they are not supposed to shoot back, we are talking about the detention of a law-abiding citizen, not a criminal, as I understand it. Objectively, among the owners of legal weapons there are more law-abiding citizens than among the rest, since they are supposed to be "selected" (rejected) by the authorization system, and the criminal needs no legal trunk. And the rigidity of detention will depend primarily on their skills and moral and psychological qualities, and only then - depending on how they assess the situation. We are now unarmed and non-resistance can be beaten during detention to death. Impunity, personal hostility, psychological overload, physical fatigue, bad mood, but you never know what else. Will they respect status? “Size always matters.” And this is not about the status of a pistol, but about the status of a citizen, by the way. Drivers and traffic police inspectors, of course, do not “strongly respect the status of the driver,” but those who behave like a citizen are afraid. YouTube videos on this subject is full.
            Quote: bot.su
            Here is the status of a deputy, a soldier, a policeman, a huntsman, I understand. And the status of "owner of a firearm"? What determines its status?

            And the status of a military pensioner is no longer clear? I repeat, his status will be determined by the status of a citizen of the country. At the same time, speaking about the rule of law, we must bear in mind that law is the will of the people, drawn up in the form of the Law, and there is a legal principle: “citizens can do everything that is not prohibited by law, but the official, on the contrary, has the right only to what is directly prescribed by law; everything else is illegal initiative. ” We have this principle turned inside out: people are legally and unlimitedly restricted in almost everything, while officials calmly allow themselves not only not prescribed, but also directly prohibited. So, if in fact, then we are arguing about a possible way to build a legal state and civil society in it, which, according to existing concepts, should have priority over the state. But you reduce it all to arguments that are either not significant, such as "the thirst for profit is stronger than the fear of death" or a hundred times already been discussed and refuted. In my opinion, you have unfounded assumptions like: “If the law on self-defense is brought into line with the realities of armed self-defense, then the one who survives will always be more right than the one who will die.” One can doubt whether the goal of building a civil society in our conditions is achievable and whether it is necessary to start building it with the legalization of trunks? These doubts are personally understandable and interesting to me, the rest is mostly contrived. I repeat, this is not about the envy of the deputies and not about the possibility of entering state institutions with trunks (the framework should be there by definition), but about restoring citizens' dignity. It is from this, I think, that we should start, and only in this case will progress await us in the country's development. And that which is based on your ideas is a way of regression, degradation. That is the whole point, in my opinion, for the exclusivity of which I do not claim.
          4. nerd.su
            nerd.su 7 February 2014 19: 52
            0
            I never heard a single intelligible argument about how a pistol will make an average citizen a citizen and why a hunting rifle or carbine cannot do this.
            The behavior of car owners still need to figure out. Of course legally literate are afraid who needs problems. So you need to know the laws and have character. But do not drag the short barrel under the arm.
            Quote: V. Salama
            So, if in fact, then we are arguing about a possible way to build a legal state and civil society in it, which, according to existing concepts, should have priority over the state.

            So that’s why we don’t understand each other! I’m saying that permission for a short barrel is useless, since it will lead to an increase in absolutely ridiculous deaths, but it will not solve the problems of self-defense.
            But even if the rule of law.
            You have not given a single, I emphasize, not a single argument in favor of the fact that the civil position of the owner of the gun is more civil than the position of the owner of a hunting rifle. Only the assertion that the owner of the pistol will receive a status that does not allow you to treat yourself like a slave. It turns out that a free citizen is distinguished from a slave only by the type of weapon that a person has the right to possess. Shotgun or carbine - you are a slave. But the gun and you are a free citizen. Why not a tank?

            Quote: V. Salama
            and the restoration of citizens' dignity

            And compulsory sambo training, for example, will not be a much better way to restore self-esteem?

            Killing with weapons is progress, and improving willpower, physical fitness and special skills is regression?
          5. V. Salama
            V. Salama 8 February 2014 21: 42
            0
            Quote: bot.su
            ... how a pistol will make an average citizen a citizen, and why a hunting rifle or carbine cannot do this.
            We are talking about the need and the legal right of citizens to armed defense, as a material basis and a formal sign of the ability of citizens to display an active life position. A carbine allows you to defend yourself now, but it is always at home and in a safe, and outside of the house you are formally entitled to such a right that everyone is clear. “Why not a tank?” - It’s also understandable why, he is in the hangar, not far from the railway station Art. Buoy. And the “civil position of the owner of the pistol” is not “more civil than the position of the owner of a hunting rifle” of course, it does not depend on weapons at all - we can at any time begin to comply with all our civic duties: laws, the rule of law, and rules of hostel. If we are accustomed to such an attitude towards ourselves, we value what we still have left, we hope that everything will be even better - but what bothers us? It's just that we are formal citizens, which means that the game always goes one way, and in this life we ​​can’t change anything without a revolution, and we will continue to go where we go. True, it seems to many that uphill.
            Regarding the "deal with car owners" - it's my fault, I did not describe the situation in detail, and you focused on something else. I will explain more: - I walked along the left sidewalk of a one-way road, along which an off-road vehicle was moving along my course. At the intersection, at the green traffic light, I almost half-crossed the road with one-way traffic, when I saw with angular vision how he began to make a relatively slow left turn. I’ve been in such situations repeatedly, I’ve already been "tired" of it - to demonstrate, so I continued to move without turning my head to the right, showing the driver that I saw him, because, right and left, I already looked, before starting the movement, all the cars on they stopped at the traffic light, and in principle, there couldn’t be any interference on the one-way road, so as not to miss me, slowing down, and I could clearly see it. I cross the road faster than usual, but I walk quickly, nevertheless, he rolled faster and they made it clear to me that I was nobody here - they gently pushed me like that. I saw as a corner the bumper was approaching me, I didn’t turn my head intentionally - I walked as I walked, not that I wanted to suffer for the truth - I hoped that this one would slow down. I'm right here! But here I am an insect. If the short barrel were allowed, then this could hardly have happened. The driver would reason something like many argue here - what if he has something and has a bad mood, God forbid - a nervous breakdown? Here is one, in my opinion, one of the ways to protect a person from encroachment on his sense of personal dignity and build his conviction that he is a real citizen with a full set of rights, duties and responsibilities.
          6. V. Salama
            V. Salama 8 February 2014 21: 45
            0
            Quote: bot.su
            So that’s why we don’t understand each other!
            Yes, therefore, because we understand the status of a deputy, a police officer .... and citizen status is not. But after all, they are “servants of the people” - they exist for us, and not we for them. They are called upon to ensure the required quality of our life at their sites without prejudice to this quality, the people did not give them the right to do this, they themselves, on behalf of the state, take this right and draw it up in the form of laws. You know the ancient principle: “Kill your enemies and accept the law that murder is punishable by death.” We also do not understand because we look at the management process differently. We are hostages to the Mongol-Khan model of governance (the Khan is everything, the rest is nothing), which the Moscow princes took over and destroyed the Pskov-Novgorod veche democracy with their own hands. Moreover, the idea of ​​the sacredness of the management process is constantly imposing on us, which, they say, is only for the elect to own this art. There is a wish of one deputy (published in the AMF) did not write down his last name, unfortunately, not to disclose to citizens the sacredness of the process of public administration. And what a scandalous video with Gref is worth - "people should not be given all the information." But this must be watched - spit on citizens from the elite. So we value the status of the Ecelops — everything depends on them, and ask any manager for a list of criteria for the effectiveness of the management process — at best, they will call one generalizing, which they treat as feudal lords, and they have trouble with the definition of “management”. I read in the report of one big boss that "management is the art of doing your work with the wrong hands." But in essence, management is just a specific process of ensuring production in order to increase its efficiency (as for politics - public administration, the goal is to increase the welfare of the people and other aspects of national security), which, if necessary, is “deformed” in wartime, and There are more than three hundred highly scientific definitions of this process. Therefore, the manager, of course, must have specific intellectual skills and knowledge, but he is no different from another qualified employee and honor should be given to him according to work. In our country, administrative work is the most inefficient, but the highest paid. So why do they have such a high status and why does the people whose hands everything is created be so low for? So to the rule of law, either through the creation of civil society or through revolution. And where there will be more blood, I think the answer is obvious.
          7. V. Salama
            V. Salama 8 February 2014 21: 48
            0
            Quote: bot.su
            And compulsory sambo training, for example, will not be a much better way to restore self-esteem?
            What do you think now? It seems to me that a cook who has done a great job also has a growing sense of self-esteem, especially if his work is appreciated. According to Maslow’s pyramid of needs, in this case, the recognition of these merits by society is mandatory. So, not everything is so simple with dignity. In general, hand-to-hand fighting in peacetime was the lot of aristocrats or slaves (capuero, Brazil) or the population of the occupied territory (karate, Okinawa) or a means of training soldiers - sambo, for example, which was almost ruined, leaving for the sports aspect. Of course, for health and self-defense it is also good sometimes. For example, I know that in a serious mess you need to beat so that you don’t get up, otherwise you won’t have time to figure out the rest. There is a big problem - there is no second chance, so you have to lay the redundancy both in the strength of the blow and in the purpose of its application. For me, it will be safer than a gun - it allows you to react more flexibly, from a hip to a foot from five meters - there are no problems. If you believe the films about the kung fu masters, it turns out that there is no need for self-defense weapons, however, if you engage in training almost around the clock from early childhood until the end of life. Here, it seems, both age and illnesses and injuries do not matter. Perhaps, but most have a different life.
            Quote: bot.su
            Killing with weapons is progress, and improving willpower, physical fitness and special skills is regression?
            This is what I said about the country: - if civil society is progress, and if "it is not caught - not a thief" and to the Etsilops - Ku for everything that they do, then this is definitely a regression.
          8. nerd.su
            nerd.su 10 February 2014 22: 20
            -1
            Quote: V. Salama
            In general, hand-to-hand fighting in peacetime was the lot of aristocrats or slaves (capuero, Brazil) or the population of the occupied territory (karate, Okinawa)

            Capoeira is still more of a dance than a martial art. And it came about from the fact that its creators love to sing and dance much more than work. And they resisted the planters simply by dancing instead of working laughing But this is an ironic retreat ...
            To possess weapons and especially to own them is also predominantly an aristocratic or at least noble prerogative. War is their main occupation and they have more time for training than bakers and shoemakers.
            By the way, have you read Lermonotov's poem "The Song About Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, the Young Oprichnik and the Daring Merchant Kalashnikov"? And what did Count Orlov like to fight with famous fist fighters? So in Russia, unarmed fighting rather united wide sections of society.

            Etsilopam ku - this is your understanding. I look, you have two options - either to buy an ecelop, or to fill it up. Otherwise, why the trunk to create a civil society?
          9. V. Salama
            V. Salama 11 February 2014 20: 58
            0
            Oooh! I, as always, to cap analysis ...

            Quote: bot.su
            Capoeira is still more of a dance than a martial art.
            And I thought that this was a special technique for working with knives. Imagine a poor half-naked black man is standing, his hands are empty (or tied behind his back), his feet are hiding in the road dust. Three grinning pursuers approach him and fall in three seconds, some with a cut throat, some with a cut tendon. How misled me however ...? Although, of course, now it can also be "dancing", just like sambo - now it is a sport.
            Quote: bot.su
            Etsilopam ku - this is your understanding. I look, you have two options - either to buy an ecelop, or to fill it up.
            What is so uncontested? Yes, and about the "fill up" I have never mentioned. This slander, however, cannot be argued like that.
            Quote: bot.su
            Otherwise, why the trunk to create a civil society?

            I, in order not to bore everyone here with my tediousness, I will explain it again in a "personal".
          10. Cynic
            Cynic 11 February 2014 21: 17
            +1
            Quote: V. Salama
            And then I thought that this is a special technique for working with knives.

            Well, how are you like this, still did not hear about the Chosson. Although you can know him as savat.
            drinks
          11. V. Salama
            V. Salama 11 February 2014 21: 29
            0
            Quote: Cynic
            ... still say about the Chosson have not heard

            laughing Glad to meet, right now I'll figure out what's here ... drinks
          12. Cynic
            Cynic 11 February 2014 21: 44
            +1
            Quote: V. Salama
            I'll figure it out right now


            sad
        2. The comment was deleted.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • nerd.su
    nerd.su 10 February 2014 21: 59
    -1
    Quote: V. Salama
    A carbine allows you to defend yourself now, but it is always at home and in a safe, and outside of the house you are formally entitled to such a right that everyone is clear.

    Quote: V. Salama
    And the "civil position of the owner of the gun" is not "more civil than the position of the owner of a hunting rifle" of course

    Well, we remove the issue of civilian position, you acknowledge that it does not depend on what kind of weapon to have, moreover, you even acknowledge that the weapon has nothing to do with whether a person has a civil position or everything is purple.
    To self-defense here and now. The law now allows the use of gas sprays and pistols (revolvers) and traumatic pistols, as we call them. In my opinion, if a person does not have the illusion that there is some kind of magical device of self-defense that does not require skills of its use, speed and decisiveness and a certain rigidity of actions in self-defense, then the listed permitted means should be enough for him. At least if you triple the experiment - I, having trained with an injury, depict how a nerd should be, and you are a hooligan, who alternately tries to rob me with his fists, then with a stick, then with a knife, I'm sure that if you are not a masochist, then the experiment stop after the very first experience. In this case, shooting in the head is excluded.
    The use of a pistol requires no less skills than a traumatic, but much greater moral and volitional qualities. So in most situations, the short-barrel does not give any advantages. There remains a minority of situations for which it is better to turn to specialists for a way out. For if you are a librarian, then you have little chance of defending yourself from a killer. He can just poison you. Or slaughter in the morning crush.

    About car situations. If you are ready to use a pistol for jeep drivers, having previously thought up an excuse for attacking you with the help of an increased danger, without thinking that a person may have a short driving experience, there may be ice, which fifteen minutes ago, his braking system gave flow, etc. - you are a dangerous psychopath and I am against you walking around the streets with weapons. Today I was in a hurry and stepped into the red intersection, but of the two cars, it was true that there was only one jeep, none of them tried to teach me something, one missed, by the way, the jeep, the second traveled around. Maybe you all the same somehow especially cross the road? Especially cocky? Judging by your determination to teach the driver a lesson by sending him to the other world ...
    And why none of the supporters of pistols considers the situation when the driver also has a barrel? And his three passengers? The trunks are then allowed to all and the driver of the jeep to protect the property they need more than pensioners, pedestrians.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 10 February 2014 23: 06
    +2
    Quote: bot.su
    you have little chance of defending yourself from the killer. He can just poison you. Or slaughter in the morning crush.

    And so started well
    Quote: bot.su
    The use of a pistol requires no less skills than a traumatic, but much greater moral and volitional qualities.

    It’s just interesting why you are trying to continue the discussion when it is clear that your view is in a completely different plane of being.
    For you, a weapon is only a method of achieving, demonstrating the advantages of its owner and nothing more.
    For me, a weapon is, so to speak, an attribute, an indicator of culture. Well, for example, how right.
    By the way, car owners in essence, in your vision, are also killers.
    request
  • Cynic
    Cynic 10 February 2014 23: 28
    0
    Accident 185764
    24380 dead
    Wounded 235316


    5. As a result of criminal attacks 36,7 thousand people died
    ...
    9. ... using weapons committed 7,6 thousand crimes
  • nerd.su
    nerd.su 11 February 2014 11: 15
    0
    Quote: Cynic
    Just wondering why you are trying to continue the discussion.

    From the principle.
    On the contrary, I constantly show that weapons do not solve any of the problems that its supporters promise to solve. Neither self-defense, nor building a civil society. And, judging by the fact that cons were used, the arguments of the supporters end.
    Well, let the attribute, buy yourself a gun. Although, I think you already have it. Why is a gun necessary? Yes, from a theoretical point of view, the gun effectively exercises the right to armed self-defense. Here are the numbers you bring convincing below. But if you really look at life, you understand that these numbers do not decrease with the permission for a short barrel. Unemployment will not decrease, wages will not increase, that is, social problems - one of the foundations of crime, will not go anywhere. And people who are basically accustomed to living at the expense of the weaker, pathological rapists, killers, maniacs will not go anywhere. Statistics on the dead will only grow due to random victims.
    There are now four well-known cases of mass executions in Russia. Killed 19 people, 15 of whom were killed by people whose profession involves the use of weapons, 6 killed by the owner of legal weapons, 2 killed by a relative of the owner of legal weapons. In the United States, from 2000 to 2012, 351 people were killed and 728 injured as a result of such incidents. These are victims of legal weapons of the population. The mental deviations of the shooters in the absence of weapons would be less tragic. With the introduction of permission to sell the short barrel, we will quickly catch up with America. And even overtake.

    Car owners are killers according to V. Salama. I just do not consider them as such. And do not compare the car, the main purpose of which is the transportation of people and goods with a gun.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 11 February 2014 17: 52
    0
    Quote: bot.su
    And do not compare the car ... with a gun.

    No, it’s much more effective.
    Quote: bot.su
    With the introduction of permission to sell the short barrel, we will quickly catch up with America. And even overtake.

    Somehow you contradict yourself, if you are already making a selection, then make a selection on a short-cut. As far as I remember, these American tragedies were mainly attended by your beloved rifles and army-type pistols.

    I think it’s not worth continuing, I was convinced once again _ we are talking about different things.
    hi
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 11 February 2014 21: 53
    0
    Quote: bot.su
    Well, we remove the issue of civic position, ...
    A hasty conclusion, we have not even decided on the concept of "self-esteem" It can be had and preserved even in prison (as well as a civil position, being defeated in civil rights by law), in captivity it helps to survive - weapons here, indeed, not than.
    But in this case, the polemic will lose all meaning and will represent an endless, not suggesting result, chain of presenting to each other an incomplete totality of each of its facts, ideas about conceivable and far-fetched situations as arguments on the issue of “impossible or possible”. The question is something else - who are we and do we need it or not? With one answer to this question it is definitely impossible, with another it is definitely necessary. It is a pity that you do not want to understand this so stubbornly. The error is that we, having not decided on the main and even, primitively, with the definitions of the basic concepts, delved into the secondary. If you remember, I paid attention:
    Quote: V. Salama
    ... not so simple with dignity.
    Next:
    Quote: bot.su
    ... I, having trained with an injury, depict how a nerd should be, and you are a bully, who is alternately trying to rob me with his fists ..,
    For some reason, it seems to me that modeling is not yours and you have never even been involved in any kind of martial arts.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 11 February 2014 22: 00
    0
    Quote: bot.su
    If you are ready to use a pistol for jeep drivers, having previously thought up an excuse for attacking you with the help of increased danger, without thinking that a person may have a short driving experience, there may be ice that his braking system gave fifteen minutes ago flow, etc. - you are a dangerous psychopath and I am against you walking around the streets with weapons.

    This is from the series “she herself came up with - she was offended herself” or “from a sick head to a healthy one” - they already wrote me down in psychopaths. Why did you get all this? We'll have to apparently refer to ourselves from previous posts:
    Quote: V. Salama
    ... this is unlikely to happen. The driver would reason something like many argue here - what if he has something and has a bad mood ...
    Here we are not talking about psychopaths and murderers, we are talking about healthy people. Only one is a pedestrian, and the other is the hero of a song by author and performer Timur Shaov, remember: “Ham is sitting on Ham-me-re ... .... para-va-rotnik do not turn on-cha-and-it - Pavara-a-chivat ”. I’ll continue the discussion of the latter: “... I acted rudely with him, if not more - endangered, if not life, then health. What if it’s firing, if not in me, then in the car? And it will be right, if only in the person of the public, which looks at it outrageously from the windows of a dozen and a half cars at the intersection. ”
    Am I really putting my thoughts so badly? Further:
    Quote: V. Salama
    It’s clear that if I have a weapon, it’s stupid to use it in this situation (although according to the Charter of the RF Armed Forces, weapons are used here without warning, they just “forgot” to define the concept of “attack using a vehicle”), this is not about that, but about that probably there wouldn’t be such a situation
    And where else, about me a psychopath?
    Yes, it’s stupid, because even if the short barrel is allowed, the legislation will be made flawed. And I drew attention to the fact that even in the article of the Armed Forces charter on the procedure for the use of weapons, where it is prescribed to use them without warning, in the event of an attack on soldiers using a vehicle, they will not be able to use weapons if the attacker just crushes them with wheels. Otherwise, any paid lawyer will smear the offender and put them in jail. However, we consider the situation from the standpoint of normal legislation and normal logic. Possible reasoning of the pedestrian who was hit: “A gross violation has occurred, the offender is trying to escape from the scene. I must take measures to assist the police, and if not to prevent the offender’s flight, then at least to speed up his search and gather evidence. I have a weapon with me, I own it perfectly, they will ask me - well, I couldn’t get into the wheel, but could I make a hole in the trunk? What will I answer them that I can’t shoot? They will tell me - the gun is on the table, and they will be right. ” Maybe I have exaggerated here, but I don’t know how to reach out ...
  • nerd.su
    nerd.su 11 February 2014 23: 34
    0
    Quote: V. Salama
    But in this case, the polemic will lose all meaning and will represent an endless, not suggesting result, chain of presenting to each other an incomplete totality of each of its facts, ideas about conceivable and far-fetched situations as arguments on the issue of “impossible or possible”.

    You are appealing to the theoretical provisions on civil society, the right to armed self-defense, "squeezing out a slave." I am trying to show that a rifled short-barreled weapon either does not help in these matters, or it is possible to use another type of weapon.
    Quote: V. Salama
    The question is something else - who are we and do we need it or not? With one answer to this question - definitely not, with another - clearly necessary

    I am a free person, I am not someone else’s property, I have rights and obligations to my country. I don’t need a gun to feel free. But I’m forced, I emphasize, forced, I will purchase it if its free sale is allowed. Because I will be put in a position where at any moment a drunk or a psychopath can start shooting. We have to deal with the possibility of arming society through the formation of public opinion smile
    What do you always appeal to low human passions, describing the arrogant owners of expensive jeeps? Let's better about the grandfather on the Cossack. laughing The joke remembered just the topic. An old Cossack crashes into a Mercedes. Grandfather climbs out of constipation, four bulls from Merc and to grandfather
    - Well, grandfather, you got it!
    Grandfather got a shotgun from the car.
    - There is no time for me to talk to you, sons, count on the first or second! Now the first sucked at the second.
    After bickering and a warning shot, the request is fulfilled, grandfather sits down and leaves. First:
    - We must catch up with the old goat and punish!
    The second:
    - No, normal man!

    Quote: V. Salama
    For some reason, it seems to me that modeling is not yours and you have never even been involved in any kind of martial arts.

    Moreover, martial arts, I will prove with the trauma its sufficiency. That you can show me the feet in the dust. Yes, in the fifth grade I read a sambo tutorial. He mastered with heels of throws, only the throw through the thigh was firmly fixed and it will not be easy to apply ...

    Let's close the topic of jeeps all the same. And then in court you’ll talk about promoting the law, but you’ll be put in prison for murder anyway, the peasant then drove your wife to the maternity hospital, didn’t bring both ... This is to say that shooting on the road on cars is not normal. Remember the number, report it to the police or find a person and talk. Maybe he needs a kind word. And if he is a notorious boor, you can shoot him personally without risking random people.

    Our positions are opposite, at least in the issue of the role of weapons in civil society, so I think we will still have reasons to cross arguments.
    hi
  • Cynic
    Cynic 12 February 2014 16: 56
    0
    Quote: bot.su
    . But I’m forced, I emphasize, forced, I will purchase it if its free sale is allowed. Because I will be put in a position where at any moment a drunk or a psychopath can start shooting.

    Eh hehe.
    Something you have, dear nerd.su with the evidence base of my point of view completely case seams !
    It turns out that shooting now
    Quote: bot.su
    Killed 19 people, 15 of whom were killed by people whose profession involves the use of weapons, 6 killed by the owner of legal weapons, 2 killed by a relative of the owner of legal weapons.

    are not drinking and mentally normal people.
    Do not find that a little messed up?
    I repeat, we are talking about different things.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 12 February 2014 22: 48
    0
    Quote: bot.su
    I’m trying to show that a rifled short-barreled weapon practically doesn’t help in these matters, or it is possible to use another type of weapon.

    Firstly, it is no longer convincing - the statement is internally contradictory. Secondly, how will you prove it - on real examples, on models, by logical means? This is not your arsenal.
    Quote: bot.su
    Im free person, …. I don’t need a gun to feel free.

    There is nothing to argue - we are all different. “A free man will remain free in prison” (from the film “Do not be afraid, I am with you”).
    But, we are not talking about a single situation and not about the needs of a particular person - we are convincing the whole society - we are taking the position of its interests. After all, it is said:
    Quote: bot.su
    We have to deal with the possibility of arming society through the formation of public opinion

    The motive, however, here let us down - purely personal - the contradiction includes:
    Quote: bot.su
    But I’m forced, I emphasize, forced, I will purchase it if its free sale is allowed.

    It is unconvincing to prove public benefit from a position of personal interest.
    Next:
    Quote: bot.su
    Let’s close the topic of jeeps yet .... This is me to the fact that shooting on the road at cars is not normal.

    This was a concrete example from life, which was supposed to be used as a model of a possible situation in new conditions.
    Quote: bot.su
    And here martial arts, .... Yes, in the fifth grade I read a tutorial ...

    And besides, because of this, you can see a lack of understanding of the futility of the method of proof that you proposed. It’s a long time to explain, but it would all come down to a commonplace mistake - not to separate and confuse the assessment of the effectiveness of the product and the ability to win the match.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 12 February 2014 22: 52
    0
    Quote: bot.su
    ... I with a trauma will prove its sufficiency.

    And you cannot prove this (its sufficiency), because, remember, earlier:
    Quote: bot.su
    The use of a pistol requires no less skills than a traumatic one, ....
    It's clear.
    Quote: nerd.su, .... So, in most situations, the short barrels do not give any advantages [/ quote
    but this is already gone. Are you talking about situations in which the short barrel is effective? If so, then why not talking about situations in which only the “gun” is effective? Who studied them, considered their ratio?
    Quote: bot.su
    ... There remains a minority of situations, for the solution of which it is better to turn to specialists.
    That is, you highlight a group of situations where all weapons are generally not applicable for protection? What for? Or is it still applicable, “but is it better to apply?” Then why is the minority?
    Why can you not prove sufficiency without answering these questions? Well, the initial premises for the conclusions can be as follows:
    - the fire system with a probability of hitting a target of at least 0,5 is classified as high-precision, and the radius of expansion of fragments of ammunition, where targets are struck with a probability of at least the indicated area of ​​significant damage.
    - a parachute, with a probability of disclosure of at least 0,999 no one will put on - this is a bad parachute.
    - a means of self-defense that allows you to protect yourself in ... cases from ... expected situations - this is ... a means, since here, as with a parachute, the most valuable is at stake - human life. That's something like that, if we compare the "injury" with the "gun".
    Quote: bot.su
    That you can show me the feet in the dust.

    And why should I do this? “Feet in the Dust” is a description of the situation, meaning that the combat knives are already clamped with a special grip on the toes, that's all. For a weapon in the hand or behind the belt of someone who is not supposed to - this is a bullet without talking.
    Quote: bot.su
    Our positions are opposite, ....

    That's why …
    Quote: V. Salama
    I did not intend to convince you, I tried to answer your question, the answer to which your opponent, in my opinion, considered obvious ...

    hi
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 11 February 2014 22: 06
    0
    Quote: bot.su
    Today I was in a hurry and stepped into the red intersection, but of the two cars, it was true that there was only one jeep, none of them tried to teach me something, one missed, by the way, the jeep, the second drove around
    I already wrote about this - we will be infinitely measured by facts. But this is an example you led to, do you want to refute the existence of the situation that I outlined? You can argue here endlessly, such as: 1. you are lucky; 2. maybe you have statistics on road accidents and the traffic police began pressing drivers, announcing a month of traffic safety; 3. maybe your people are kinder, etc. So you wait until spring and on Friday evening walk along the left sidewalk of ul. Bolshevik (Catherine) towards Art. Perm-2 to the intersection with the street. Krisanova, here they will push you in the ass and pass on the heels during a left turn. If along Krisanova (on the right sidewalk) cross Catherine’s towards the Cosmonauts Highway - they will squeeze the heels at the left turn from Krisnov. This will be a real experiment. If here five years ago we drove according to the rule - “cars go to any light, and pedestrians go - which way it works”, then I don’t think that now something has changed dramatically.
    Quote: bot.su
    Maybe you all the same somehow especially cross the road? Especially cocky? Judging by your determination to teach the driver a lesson by sending him to the other world ...
    About the decision to “teach the driver a lesson” is already like a hackneyed record, it is something obsessive ... and how I crossed the road, no matter how I tried to depict, no matter how hungry:
    Quote: V. Salama
    ... I did not describe the situation in detail, and you focused on something else
    you still know better than me how everything was, even without being a witness to the incident. It also characterizes you specifically ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 11 February 2014 22: 24
    0
    Quote: bot.su
    And why none of the supporters of pistols considers the situation when the driver also has a barrel? And his three passengers?

    Yes, no problem — there are several options, but the most likely next one is that no one will get out of the car — what is the point of these adventures (I repeat once again - we are not talking about psychopaths), to drain your life into the toilet. They have something to lose, it is said after all:
    Quote: bot.su
    ... a jeep driver needs them to protect property than a pedestrian pensioner
    In addition, the driver might well think that “why not be a pedestrian a fan of Bob Munden (Manden) - he will now put us on completely legitimate grounds beautifully with a fan for half a second”. So they will dump them quickly, or pretend to be unjustly injured victims of arbitrariness.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 11 February 2014 22: 48
    +2
    Quote: bot.su
    from supporters of pistols

    You at least nerd.su do not duplicate supporters of pistols , if anything, they are called pistols.
    good
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 11 February 2014 22: 57
    0
    Quote: Cynic
    ... do not duplicate
    Okay, but I thought that I should not distort the author’s words. request I’m saying goodbye for today, it’s time for me to sleep hi
  • The comment was deleted.
  • nerd.su
    nerd.su 12 February 2014 01: 06
    0
    Actually, this is my evil sarcasm and it means supporters pistols.
    However, it’s a plus for you to calmly defend your position in all aspects, in particular, terminological.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 12 February 2014 17: 11
    0
    Quote: bot.su
    sarcasm and mean supporters of pistols

    It may seem strange to you, but I myself treat them with a grin.
    For me you enemy of pistols .
    Well, how many times can I repeat that the presence of a personal short-barrel is one of the aspects of a personality’s culture. Which absolutely does not exclude the development of its other parties.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • old rocket man
    old rocket man 10 February 2014 23: 23
    0
    Quote: bot.su

    And compulsory sambo training, for example, will not be a much better way to restore self-esteem?


    As a former master of sports in freestyle wrestling, I can assure you that the possession of sambo, if you have a meter with a cap in a jump and "lamb's weight", on the street will not save you even from the dumbest "boogie" really not necessary
  • nerd.su
    nerd.su 11 February 2014 11: 32
    0
    In addition to the short-barrel there is also pepper spray - instant blinding and respiratory failure. And this is enough not only for the master of sports in any weight category.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 11 February 2014 17: 57
    0
    Quote: bot.su
    In addition to the short barrel, there is also pepper spray

    Yes Yes .
    Quote: Cynic
    we are talking about different things.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 7 February 2014 14: 49
    +1
    Quote: bot.su
    to squeeze out a slave means an opportunity to fight for their rights with weapons in their hands? I outlined the prospects for armed struggle above to Comrade Cynic. In order to make such a fight real, it is necessary that serious military weapons - machine guns - go into free sale

    Somehow you stubbornly reduce everything to a confrontation with the authorities, like the very ones
    Quote: bot.su
    hot young people, mostly liberal in appearance

    Quote: bot.su
    With a kind word, you can still resolve most situations.

    As there
    They are terribly far from the people

    (who said and for what reason in the course, but painfully succinctly said, comprehensive)
    So I think you really, so fragmentarily perceive reality or are you stubbornly trying to match the nickname?
    After all, it all boils down to the usual wisdom, in glorious times
  • nerd.su
    nerd.su 7 February 2014 15: 23
    0
    Rather, a communist appearance.
    As for jazz, in general, the right words laughing

    Incidentally, I did not make any complaints to you about the sale of the homeland. But this is not the first time for you ...

    I perceive reality in everything that is accessible to my understanding, diversity. And in my understanding, the gun does not give any freedoms, it makes a person a slave of his own fears.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 7 February 2014 15: 35
    +1
    Quote: bot.su
    But this is not the first time for you ...

    Do not try to give out wishful thinking?
    Quote: bot.su
    the pistol does not give any freedoms, it makes a man a slave to his own fears.

    Famous _ Is the glass half full or empty?

    It would be funny if it were not so sad.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 5 February 2014 13: 56
    +2
    Supporters of the population with firearms: “You were gone!” No one in their right mind would vote for it! Only fools and scoundrels, for the sake of their own selfish interests! Once they allowed gas cartridges and criminal reports to be filled with reports of attacks and robberies using this Self-defense means. Allowed a trauma, - and, practically, every day, reports on the use of a trauma for aggressive purposes. I assume that there are attacks with a trauma and gas. , there will be more than cases of self-defense. And if you allow ,, fire arrows, filled with ammunition with “childish” bullets? Rubber bullet is not coated with lead, but how many kills and serious injuries! Can’t ,, firearms, protect people from robberies and other aggressive attacks! How often robberies? A person walks into the doorway and is hit on the head so that the victim is often not seen and the robber! If they walk with pistols, the pistols will soon “go to the robbers, for the robbers, knowing about the armed situation, will plan attacks so that the victim does not have time to take advantage ruzhiemi.Ach? someone says that you should not constantly walk the streets with a gun, and the gun is better to keep at home? Then: ,, A person walks into the stairwell ... ,,,, then the apartment and the pistol (among other things) will open, , moves, to .....! A citizen, physically strong, regularly involved in sports (and including martial arts) has a chance to fight off punks, equipped, with a stick, brass knuckles, even, as a last resort, a knife, but against ,, firearms ,,? How is it according to the proverb? - ,, better than any karate-in-pocket TT pistol ,, That's just the TT would be in the hands of fallen, if in the State Duma they listen to the gun lobbyers, by the way, by the end of 80 in the union they played a Polish film, where Polish, opera, they caught a maniac attacking women: they sent an employee who had good skills to walk along a dark street - before and with a pistol in her purse. But the attack of the maniac was so sudden and swift that neither judo nor pistol in her purse helped, only polospuvshie policemen helped. In general, people who think that they have not lost their common sense ,,, cash infu ,,!
    1. KBACYPA
      KBACYPA 5 February 2014 14: 11
      +5
      So sane people do not offer to sell the stubby barrel like a potato in the market. On the contrary, unlearn, undergo training, pass exams and then you can acquire weapons. An outspoken punks will not be able to unlearn and will not pass the exam, so he can get hold of a legal barrel unless by accident (the conversation is about legal weapons). And "serious" people do not trade in robbery on the streets. And as for gas and trauma, they are positioned as non-lethal means, so there is no "block in the brain" about the use. The attitude to combat weapons is different.
    2. Navy7981
      Navy7981 5 February 2014 15: 01
      +3
      The attacker’s TT will be without a gun law anyway
    3. Cynic
      Cynic 5 February 2014 17: 19
      +1
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      has a chance to fight off

      Well said !
      Can you voice their number?
  • Landwarrior
    Landwarrior 5 February 2014 13: 58
    +1
    This is only for fans of computer games it seems that everything is simple, as in any first-person shooter shooter-broads and that's all ... But in real life there will be shaking hands and the inability to get into something at all. In the best case, this will lead to the fact that the pistol is simply taken away and snapped to a pulse loss, and in the worst case, it will be shot from it. Self-defense, damn it ...
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 5 February 2014 14: 58
      +1
      Strange, something did not feel in itself all that you said. Of course, it was not necessary to apply against people. And against the dog only pneumatics. But the only fear at the same time was that the dog should not think enough. Therefore, for fidelity, I grabbed some more good reinforcement. But the hands somehow did not tremble.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Landwarrior
        Landwarrior 5 February 2014 15: 11
        +1
        Animals are a completely different matter. Dog, cat, chicken, crow, rat, it makes no difference. Purely at the subconscious level. The brain perceives them in a completely different way.
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 5 February 2014 17: 16
          +1
          I don’t know, I personally feel more sorry for animals than people. We kept the hens out of the summer, so we couldn’t kill them by winter. Sent to the village to relatives in exchange for the finished carcass :). But there was nothing to do. This one of our cats drove around the yard, and could even have children.
      3. nerd.su
        nerd.su 5 February 2014 15: 28
        +1
        I advise you a spray can of gas. From dogs helps perfectly, regardless of their number. The experience is repeated and, by the way, the hands do not tremble either. They say that it doesn’t work on trained service dogs, but it is unlikely to meet such a dog without a master if you do not climb protected objects at night.
        1. saygon66
          saygon66 5 February 2014 17: 22
          +1
          - Gas cylinders do not work at low temperatures! With a strong wind - too! Unless indoors ...
          1. nerd.su
            nerd.su 5 February 2014 17: 56
            +1
            Everything works great. Against husky persistent last winter at minus thirty applied. For the heels, the infection, tried to grab smile So I didn’t even get into it, it is already snouted in the snow. The sense of smell is not comparable to human. And in March, cats began to yell under the window, got it straight. I sprayed there a couple of times, so for two weeks they were going somewhere else, then I had to repeat it, and then March ended smile
            1. saygon66
              saygon66 5 February 2014 22: 18
              0
              - And what kind of "drug"?
              1. nerd.su
                nerd.su 5 February 2014 23: 21
                +1
                I do not remember. But to act on dogs, it is very desirable that this pepper spray be. The word pepper in the name was for sure. It’s easy to get into the dog, the main thing is to spray it. But against a person, accuracy is important, the jet should hit the face. But if you do not have Parkinson's disease, then such a simple action should not be a problem.


                I hope you do not choose for the big road? repeat And then I have one classmate, in the first half of the 90s, I didn’t enter the university right away, although I was cooler in terms of knowledge. And he began a diverse fun life. And there was an episode in it when he went out onto a big road with a spray, because he was also a nerd in some way, not impressed with his appearance. So a couple of times everything went well, and then, he says, he meets a guy with a girl on a dark path - like, chase hats, there was such a topic, well, wallets! And then the guy grabbed his hand, the can unscrewed the can and gas right into his nostril! Everything, consciousness, says, immediately left him for a while. Woke up, no spray, no hats, no hours, no wallet! Do not dig another hole, you yourself will fall into it! laughing But the kid was a little philosophical, engaged in shuttle business with relatives ...
                1. saygon66
                  saygon66 6 February 2014 08: 50
                  0
                  - Purely professional interest ... Last time, the dogs reacted kindly sluggishly. It was approx. -10 C. However, the bosses like to save on the safety of employees ... they bought cheaply.
                  1. nerd.su
                    nerd.su 6 February 2014 09: 37
                    0
                    Are you a policeman or a postman? Just wondering who the spray can buy office?
                    In principle, not every gas acts on dogs. But pepper spray helps for sure.
                    1. saygon66
                      saygon66 6 February 2014 11: 43
                      0
                      wink - Well, chop here too ...
    2. rereture
      rereture 5 February 2014 15: 12
      +1
      That is, you think that a pair of not even aimed shots towards the attacker will not make him at least mechanically bounce to the side and will not be confusing?

      Oh well. You correctly noticed that this is not a shooter, but even with shaking hands, getting from two meters into the building is not so difficult.
      1. Landwarrior
        Landwarrior 5 February 2014 15: 31
        +2
        It may be confusing, but no more. And then there are options.
        Some kind of snotty gopnik can run away with wet pants, but a criminal offender can do the exact opposite and go on the attack.
        And then, depending on what you are being attacked, if with fists, there is an excess of self-defense, and this is the time limit.
        And yes, if you allowed the enemy 2 meters to you, then consider that you no longer have a gun.
        1. rereture
          rereture 5 February 2014 15: 47
          +1
          Often you met with a recurrent criminal, or maybe we will leave it for fortune-tellers who will guess "maybe this is, or maybe that"

          I believe that we should have a free, legal market for short-barreled weapons, which will be well controlled.
          There should be good control when issuing licenses, the commission should check:
          1. Mental health
          2. Knowledge of the legal aspects of the use of weapons
          3. Knowledge of weapons skills
          4. The place of storage of weapons.

          But first of all, you need to change the legislation regarding the law on self-defense.

          Although I want xs more for sporting purposes than for self-defense.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Landwarrior
            Landwarrior 5 February 2014 16: 18
            +1
            Quote: rereture
            Often you met with a criminal recidivist,

            Do you need weapons only against gopniks?
            Quote: rereture
            maybe we will leave it for fortune-tellers who will guess "maybe this way, maybe that way"

            And we didn’t have a specific introductory one, so don’t have to roll a barrel on me here wassat
            Quote: rereture
            I believe that we should have a free, legal market for short-barreled weapons, which will be well controlled.

            The system you proposed will only work if applied very severe sanctions for violation. That is, without the right to "step left or right". For the slightest violations at any stage - confiscation and / or term.

            Quote: rereture
            Although I want xs more for sporting purposes than for self-defense.

            But just shooting sports no easier? Or is everything completely fucked up?
            (a question without a horseshoe, I just don’t know how things are now)
            1. rereture
              rereture 5 February 2014 16: 31
              +2
              You can also go in for shooting sports, for example, BSC (Baltic Shooting Center), renting a shooting gallery 1000r an hour is not so much, but your own weapons, there is a separate fee for renting weapons, for example, 20 shots from a "Viking" cost 600r, from a glock 800r.

              Here is the price

              http://www.tirspb.ru/s/24/prays-list.html#1

              It turns out you can do it, but the prices bite a little.
              Therefore, I am collecting documents smooth-bore, in the commission you can buy toz-34 for 3-5 thousand rubles. or for 6-8 MP-135.
              1. Landwarrior
                Landwarrior 5 February 2014 16: 43
                +2
                Hmm ... Thanks for the info. good Now I know where I will kill extra time on my next trip to St. Petersburg laughing I'll see if I have lost my skills bully
                In principle, not so expensive. I have a friend in Thailand in a dash who managed to shoot all the money that he prepared for one evening in a dash, it’s good that the food in the room price was included and paid in advance, otherwise it would swell from hunger for a week laughing
                1. rereture
                  rereture 5 February 2014 16: 49
                  +2
                  lolI went to the BSC with a friend about the same, but the scholarship was delayed, I sit on buckwheat and water laughing All the same, I'm more for shooting sports than for defense with the cop wink
                  1. Landwarrior
                    Landwarrior 5 February 2014 16: 57
                    +1
                    Yeah, it happened, the rage is such that if there is no limit-sleeve then they will make buckets laughing
                    1. rereture
                      rereture 5 February 2014 17: 02
                      0
                      Unforgettable feelings wink
                2. rereture
                  rereture 5 February 2014 16: 55
                  0
                  By the way, we are namesake smile
                  1. Landwarrior
                    Landwarrior 5 February 2014 16: 59
                    +1
                    Well, very nice hi
                    And neighbors, I’ll be 400 km to the north smile
                    1. rereture
                      rereture 5 February 2014 17: 02
                      0
                      Also very nice hi
                  2. The comment was deleted.
              2. The comment was deleted.
          3. DMB-78
            DMB-78 5 February 2014 19: 17
            0
            Quote: rereture
            There should be good control when issuing licenses, the commission should check:

            and you do not know how to buy a car license? How to buy a certificate of small commission?
            1. rereture
              rereture 5 February 2014 19: 21
              0
              Of course they buy, since the issuance of this certificate is a paid service in clinics. I’ll go to our clinic to take a picture of the price, but at a discount about 2000r.

              Imagine how many times I have not tried, I have never managed to buy the rights. Although I really wanted to.
        2. alicante11
          alicante11 5 February 2014 17: 19
          0
          Understand, dear. One in the field is not a warrior in general. But if a large number of people have weapons, it will be easier to provide assistance. No repeat offender will want to expose the "rear" if he is sure that something can fly from behind.
          1. rereture
            rereture 5 February 2014 19: 24
            0
            In any such situation, it’s better not to be heroic, since you won’t be able to figure out where the victim is and where the attacker is. Better just call the police.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Cynic
      Cynic 5 February 2014 17: 57
      +1
      Quote: Landwarrior
      This is only for computer game lovers it seems that everything is simple, as in any first-person shooter shooter-

      Hmm.
      A deep knowledge of the subject is felt. laughing
      Seriously, any gamer will say that until you take seriously a simple shooter, the result is one
      1. Landwarrior
        Landwarrior 6 February 2014 10: 07
        0
        Quote: Cynic
        Seriously, any gamer will say that until you take seriously a simple shooter, the result is one

        I do not agree. No. Too serious attitude to the game kill all the charm of the game as entertainment. yes People begin to live in the game, completely scoring on IRL wassat
        And then begins any unhealthy squeeze like recent with Company of Heroes 2.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 6 February 2014 16: 30
          +1
          Quote: Landwarrior
          Too serious attitude to the game kill all the charm

          It was actually said
          Quote: Cynic
          until you get serious

          It is clear that everyone understands this in their own way, but sorry, at least for me, this is at least following the rules.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • FormerMariman
    FormerMariman 5 February 2014 14: 05
    +1
    The arms lobby knows what to push!
  • Power
    Power 5 February 2014 14: 07
    0
    Amendment II (United States Constitution)
    Because a properly organized police
    necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people
    keep and carry weapons should not be limited.
  • Riddick
    Riddick 5 February 2014 14: 08
    +7
    1. The existing law on self-defense proves that we are for power.
    2. Translated from Polish, the herd is ready for slaughter.

    Have you seen a lot of sheep with trunks?
    And now, as an introduction to assessing the need or not the need for a short barrel.
    In Moscow, Alkaida put on the ears of migrant workers.
    Well, albeit half the guest workers. Total 3 million animals with reinforcement in the city. And as expected, you were lucky and you met five of these animals.
    Question: what are the chances that when they will kill you, the police will help you (riot police, special forces, alpha, green men)?

    Not taking measures to save your life is a grave sin.
    Weapons in the first place should be, in the second be with yourself.

    Something like that.
  • Navy7981
    Navy7981 5 February 2014 14: 18
    +5
    The victim should have more defense rights than the offender to life. Otherwise, complete garbage will turn out. Now, the state, human rights activists and the like, are making every effort to protect robbers, rapists, and murderers. And if the "authority" has got, so from the lawyers, as from the crows on the battlefield, will not push through. The only law on weapons should begin with the words ... the one who has been trained and passed the examination on application ... angry What is the use of having a weapon if the lucky owner cannot even get it, not that shoot sad . Visiting the shooting gallery after purchase is required !!! I would do it once a week for an hour, the skill must be developed and maintained !!! Do you want to ride love and carry a sled. They aren’t terrible at their skill.
  • Burmistr
    Burmistr 5 February 2014 15: 12
    0
    Well, about Skolkovo made laugh, the author did well.
    laughing