Military Review

M.Butina: “The thesis that we will shoot each other - Russophobia and racism”

179
Chairman of the Board of the organization “The Right to Weapon»Responds to KM.RU readers

We recently published an article on the topic of legalizing the sale and carrying of short-barreled weapons.

The material provoked a heated discussion among the readers of KM.RU, during which a whole range of arguments against relaxation of the law on weapons was formulated.

We forwarded the readers' questions to Maria Butina, Chairman of the Board of Rights of the Weapon, who agreed to reply to the opponents.

All shoot each other?

The most common counter-argument against expanding the rights to a weapon is the statement that armed people will start firing without any sense at each other and into anyone. But why does such a doomsday not occur in other, already more armed countries, possessing several times lower levels of violent crime? Among which, for example the United States, not to mention the most armed in Europe and the safest in the world of Switzerland?

In response to this, there are usually speculations that we drink a lot, the standard of living is lower and the mentality in general is not the same. It is difficult to comment on racist arguments about how we are supposedly inferior people, since this is already a field of pathological, irrational Russophobia.

But there are facts that, for example, in Moldova, the standard of living is lower than in Russia, alcohol consumption per capita is higher. However, pistols of citizens are allowed to own property, and the level of criminal killings per capita is significantly lower than in Russia. In Georgia, citizens are also allowed to own pistols. The standard of living there remains seriously lower than in Russia, but they did not shoot each other.

The growth of the population’s arsenal leads to a decrease in crime and

Global studies show a clear relationship - the growth of the population’s arsenal leads to a decrease in crime and vice versa. This is true for countries even with the same level of GDP per capita. Whereas per capita alcohol consumption indicators show a reverse pattern, since richer countries are equally inclined to commit less crimes and drink more. In no country in the world as a result of the expansion of the rights to weapons did the growth of violent crime occur, although there are many examples of the opposite.

Russian experience is also more than indicative. Most of all civilian weapons in Russia are concentrated in Moscow, to 1 / 3 from the national volume, which does not prevent to have in the capital an average of two times less murders per capita than in the country as a whole. Another extremely armed region in Russia as a result of the “echo of war” is the North Caucasus, and there, despite problems with terrorist threats, the lowest indicator of violent crime is fixed. Due to the high level of threats to meet with armed resistance on the spot, local asocial elements are being pushed into less armed other regions of the country.

But the most obvious argument against the thesis “they'll shoot each other down” is due to the fact that Russian citizens already have more than 7 million units of legal civilian weapons, much more dangerous than pistols. These are many times more destructive long-barreled weapons or forensic traumatists that are not forensic. Nevertheless, even these volumes of more risky types of weapons among citizens, in crime do not actually participate, being ten times safer than, for example, cars. The probability of committing a crime and the same murder by the average citizen is significantly higher than by the owner of civilian weapons.

Another common “counter-argument” is that the weapon does not protect.

This is quite anecdotal thesis against the background of a lot of documentary evidence of how women, deep old people and people with disabilities are successfully defended with weapons. According to the FBI, 80% of all cases of successful civil self-defense occurs with a weapon, of which 80% falls on pistols prohibited in Russia.

To realize the scale of this crime deterrence potential, it should be understood that civilian gun owners eliminate, where possible, 6 times more criminals than they are, for example, executed by the US government, and provide more 60% criminal eradication compared to the number of people shot while police resist criminals.

According to the most modest estimates, the annual volume of use of weapons for self-defense in the USA is in the 100 area of ​​thousands of cases. Despite this, we continue to believe in the ability of the government only to fight crime, while citizens, allegedly, with these weapons, can only arrange mass executions. Although the victims of the latter in the same US, according to official data, less than 50 people per year, but their very presence is due to the so-called “weapon-free zones”, where the criminal element goes like a job.

In Russia, there are also many cases of successful armed self-defense, even according to official statistics of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, there are hundreds of cases. By the way, the government itself exclusively for self-defense provides precisely with pistols not only for police and army officers, but also, for example, for investigators, prosecutors, judges, and civil servants as a whole.

If the weapon did not protect against criminals, the banks, the authorities and the first persons did not surround themselves for protection by armed people. Fire extinguishers extinguish fires, cars allow you to move quickly, medicines are treated, and weapons are protected. To argue about the importance of healthy lifestyles and fire safety with the services of medicine and firefighters, this is certainly great, but not a reason to forbid people to have medicines and fire extinguishers.

Children and weapons

The presence of children is one of the most serious reasons for the presence of weapons, as children need something to protect and from a youth teach them to protect themselves and their homeland. Contrary to the common myth, the risks of violent death in a minor in Russia are, unfortunately, significantly higher than in the United States, as for the child’s likelihood of dying from careless handling of weapons - there are no more than one such tragedy per million. The probability of drowning in the bathroom is much higher.

Of course, the weapon not only allows you to protect children, but is also an object of heightened danger, as well as medicines, windows, electricity or knives. It is foolish to believe that without all these achievements of civilization, the life of children would be better, longer and safer.

Is there an “order” against weapons?

There is an erroneous view that there is a certain consensus against civilian weapons in society, supported by the expert community. In fact, this is not the case and is entirely a problem of low public awareness.

It should be understood that advertising of weapons is actually prohibited in Russia, which means that the majority will only learn about this subject from news issues. Just as the news does not talk about how you successfully took your mother-in-law to your dacha with your car, but they talk about an accident with a dozen corpses, the media also act in relation to civilian weapons. However, with a car, this situation is leveled by commercial advertising, while with a weapon it is impossible, which is why we have this distortion.

Only a third of the population of Russia has a basic understanding of the legal regime of weapons, for example, that for self-defense it is already possible to have more lethal, long-barreled types of weapons. Among these more informed people, the level of support for expanding the rights to weapons jumps immediately to 80%. Among the military, police and other security officials, this figure exceeds 60%. Thus, among people more or less devoted to the problems of this issue, there is just a pronounced consensus on the need to expand the rights of citizens to weapons.

If you want to learn more about it in order to make your own informed choice, I invite you to the All-Russian Congress of our organization, which will be held on September 20 in Moscow. Details about this can be found here. Unfortunately, the opinion of professionals (I am not talking about myself now) has not yet been heard. It is rather an educational, pedagogical problem, and not the result of some conscious choice, therefore informing the public remains the main priority of our activity.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.km.ru/v-rossii/2014/09/17/sovet-federatsii-fs-rf/748567-mbutina-tezis-o-tom-chto-my-drug-druga-perestrelya
179 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. RESEARCHER
    RESEARCHER 19 September 2014 08: 06
    -18
    Weapons are needed only to those who sell them. New markets, new financial flows, new jobs.
    All other arguments in favor of the evil one.
    If they sell this idea, then they will begin to agitate the townsfolk in the advantage of grenade launchers over car boors. And there, and to MANPADS in each hacienda nearby. There are smart people who will push through this idea.
    1. Nevsky_ZU
      Nevsky_ZU 19 September 2014 08: 11
      -5
      And we will have shootings as in Detroit ... fellow

      you went with your lezginka: groin-groin out of the window!

      In reply: The Caucasus rules! Waste-ta-ta !!!

      Do you respect me? (where in the provinces in a frenzy they swing a gun) look bro, what I have, PM !!!

      Somewhere in a beauty salon: " Girls, look what my hare gave me ..... you just click like this, to accidentally in your purse ... Groin... AAaaaa Duraaaaaaa "

      Excellent student, thoughts: I have a "4" in a quarter, goodbye to Moscow State University, my father will call it "moron", my mother will give lectures again ... Bastard teacher and half of the class or myself? .. Life is over ... damn grade "4" .... there from the safe ..
      1. Andrey from Tver
        Andrey from Tver 19 September 2014 08: 32
        +23
        Quote: Nevsky_ZU
        And we will have shootings as in Detroit ...

        Almost all of my friends had multiple-shot rifled carbines (such as OP SKS, Tiger, etc.). Nobody shot anyone. The guys go hunting, and that’s it.
        Quote: Nevsky_ZU
        The Caucasus rules! Waste-ta-ta !!!

        This has long been known, but these events are in no way connected with the sale of short-barrels. Tra-ta-ta is, rather, an automatic weapon. Short barrels are bang bang.
        It’s strange that’s all. The peasants have universal military service, and as soon as they served, it means a drunk, a moron and you will not be able to handle weapons.
        1. shershen
          shershen 19 September 2014 11: 21
          +8
          Citizens! Learn the technique of knife fighting - it is much more interesting, it develops intelligence and body! Peace to you.
          1. Serjant_VS_SSSR
            Serjant_VS_SSSR 19 September 2014 12: 49
            +3
            Fine! Short barrel knife. Peace to all
        2. RESEARCHER
          RESEARCHER 19 September 2014 19: 27
          +2
          From prison, sums, and I would add more and fools do not renounce. Therefore, weapons can be in the hands of a madman even before he begins to demolish the roof. And how is there to control weapons ???
      2. Kengo
        Kengo 19 September 2014 08: 36
        +17
        Have you personally ever witnessed a shootout from hunting rifles? If they are allowed, then getting permission for them will not be easier than for hunting weapons. My opinion, it is necessary to bring responsibility to those who issue permits, so that really inadequate people could not get weapons.
        1. Akvadra
          Akvadra 19 September 2014 09: 41
          +21
          I live in the urban private sector. In every house, with rare exceptions, there is a legal trunk. (and this is far from the Caucasus) I don't remember a single firearm. I also don’t remember a single case of theft or robbery. There is probably a connection in these facts! But multi-storey quarters are bombed regularly. Control over the sale, regular checks of storage, high personal responsibility of the owner - all these are the measures that must be strictly observed. You can also kill each other with sticks.
        2. Serjant_VS_SSSR
          Serjant_VS_SSSR 19 September 2014 13: 07
          +4
          In order to drive a car, airplane, steamboat ... you need to unlearn and pass an exam for the right to drive, pilot ... This may also apply to a weapons permit (short-code). Unlearned passed the exam received, etc .... With mandatory periodic retraining once every 1 years, well, or 3, and tough! In my humble opinion, lawmakers should not consider me and other residents of Russia to be some kind of fools who shoot each other, moreover, weapons registered on me. Peace to all.
        3. O_RUS
          O_RUS 19 September 2014 13: 48
          +1
          Quote: Kengo
          If they are allowed, then obtaining permission for them will not be easier than for hunting weapons


          Probably everything is relative ...
          Guests from over the hill came to my good friend. I will not describe the story before - in two days I received all the necessary documents and bought a hunting rifle.

          I asked: "How did you manage?" He just laughs and adds: "It will be necessary and we will do it for you in a couple of days"

          Quote: Kengo
          My opinion, it is necessary to bring responsibility to those who issue permits, so that really inadequate people could not get weapons.


          A convict for robbery adequate? Recidivist?
          All these ghouls, under certain conditions, will calmly receive the barrel in their hands.
          1. 1goose3
            1goose3 19 September 2014 22: 02
            0
            A convict for robbery adequate? Recidivist?
            All these ghouls, under certain conditions, will calmly receive the barrel in their hands.

            These same ghouls have no problems with weapons, unfortunately, unlike those whom they spread rot. And if there were weapons for those affected by ghouls, would ghouls go for robbery? And if they went, they would become repeat offenders or for them it all ended at the first attempt.
        4. stas52
          stas52 19 September 2014 19: 51
          +2
          Quote: Kengo
          Have you personally ever witnessed a shootout from hunting rifles? If they are allowed, then getting permission for them will not be easier than for hunting weapons. My opinion, it is necessary to bring responsibility to those who issue permits, so that really inadequate people could not get weapons.

          Do you often see people in the city with hunting weapons at the ready? Probably only hunters and then in a case, in disassembled form, separately from cartridges.
          There are almost no shootings with hunting weapons, precisely because it lies at home in a safe. Suppose one person was insulted, doused, hit, in general, no matter how, but insulted. I think everyone had a raging situation, and now look: he wants to take revenge (kill) for about 20 minutes, then he calms down and begins to think more adequately. That is, if he even runs home to get a weapon, then while he reaches, he will open the safe and equip the barrel, then most likely he will calm down. And now the situation is different: a person has a COP with him, he immediately grabs it and fulfills his momentary desire (by the way, this happens with injuries), and here is the result of a corpse and a broken life.
      3. vadimN
        vadimN 19 September 2014 11: 31
        +3
        All the examples you cited are typical cases of violation of the law on weapons. Do not break the law - and there will be no idiotic shooting. And if the fool is complete (or ...), then in order to stimulate law obedience there should be a strict responsibility for violation of this law, up to the bunk for many years.
      4. DanSabaka
        DanSabaka 19 September 2014 13: 03
        +4
        Excellent student, thoughts: I have "4" in the quarter, goodbye to Moscow State University, my father will call "moron", my mother will give lectures again ... Bastard teacher and half of the class, or myself? .. Life is over ... damn mark "4 ".... the keys are there from the safe ..

        Are you talking about that Moscow boy who, a year ago, with his father's hunting shotgun went to blame the teacher who put "4", and at the same time flunked the policeman?
        And if the guard of the school had a "short barrel" could stop this schoolboy, or even take him out of fear ...
        1. vadimN
          vadimN 19 September 2014 15: 35
          +2
          If dad hadn’t been scattered with the keys to the safe (than he had grossly violated the law on weapons!), Nothing would have happened ....
          1. DanSabaka
            DanSabaka 20 September 2014 13: 27
            0
            I agree with you
    2. e_krendel
      e_krendel 19 September 2014 08: 14
      +8
      aha
      - only farmers need milk.
      - Only taxi drivers need a taxi.
      - Only signalmen need a phone.
      - and boots - only to shoemakers ...
      ... etc.
      1. KDS
        KDS 19 September 2014 09: 56
        +1
        And that milk and boots can shoot a head off?
        1. Midshipman
          Midshipman 19 September 2014 10: 04
          +9
          In milk, you can drown, and trample with your boots, as well as: chop with an ax, stab with a knife, burn with a soldering iron, crush with a machine, and simply bring to a heart attack with bullying and so on. You are not fighting that - if there is a problem, then it is not in the gun.
        2. woron333444
          woron333444 19 September 2014 12: 41
          +2
          You can drown in milk and stomp boots. It is urgent to ban.
        3. DanSabaka
          DanSabaka 19 September 2014 13: 05
          +1
          you can’t break your head with a boot, but you can beat it off .... and people managed to drown in milk ....
          It’s not a weapon that kills, but a man ....
        4. Serjant_VS_SSSR
          Serjant_VS_SSSR 19 September 2014 13: 11
          0
          But hahaha, no, you won’t break the head with milk, but you can drown it.))))))
          1. DanSabaka
            DanSabaka 20 September 2014 13: 28
            0
            if you freeze, then you can break through .... in any business, the main thing is to prepare ....
    3. volot-voin
      volot-voin 19 September 2014 08: 15
      +15
      [quote = RESEARCHER] Weapons are needed only to those who sell them. [quote]
      The right to arms is simply necessary for a free person. As well as the normal right to self-defense (whatever you were put in prison for it). Of course, health restrictions, convictions, etc., are also needed, so that the gun would not get scumbags.
      [quote] New markets, new financial flows, new jobs. [/ quote]
      And why is it bad if all this happens in the Russian Federation.
      1. RESEARCHER
        RESEARCHER 19 September 2014 08: 18
        +7
        It’s bad that my shabby neighbor will have it. But seriously, the Western model of the development of civilization leads humanity to degradation. Degradation leads to the transformation of man into a monkey, and what a monkey with a grenade is, I think you yourself know.
        1. Irkutsk
          Irkutsk 19 September 2014 08: 26
          +5
          You forbid him to keep axes with kitchen knives?
          It doesn’t kill weapons, it kills a person. A person can choose any weapon, even a screwdriver with an awl.
          1. Kite
            Kite 19 September 2014 08: 35
            +2
            no, it’s not forbidden, but you don’t need to lay heavy, sharp and piercing objects around it!
            Quote: Irkutsk
            You forbid him to keep axes with kitchen knives?
            1. Irkutsk
              Irkutsk 19 September 2014 08: 44
              +7
              He wants - he finds. And rest assured, the gun if desired too. So, your illegitimate neighbor will have an illegal trunk, but your legal one will not. When he starts waving his trunk with the trunk - hide the piercing-cutting
              1. Kite
                Kite 19 September 2014 08: 48
                +5
                Quote: Irkutsk
                your illegitimate neighbor will have an illegal trunk, but your legal one will not.

                - and therefore, you want to shoot first ?! winked
                1. Irkutsk
                  Irkutsk 19 September 2014 08: 58
                  +4
                  Yeah! I won’t wait. Well, I'm not a liberalist.
                  1. Kite
                    Kite 19 September 2014 09: 09
                    -5
                    If he will swing the trunk, then just give him a turnip and take away the trunk, bring it (the trunk) to the state of metellolom and hand over both to the police. If your chopped neighbor shoots without warning, then your trunk will be his second.
                    1. Irkutsk
                      Irkutsk 19 September 2014 09: 28
                      +10
                      Unlike you, I went with a stake to the trunk, though then there was wind in my head (17 years old, street fights) and a self-made small-arms pistol misfired. After the fight, having examined the selected samopal, I saw a bent striker and the place of its impact on the end of the sleeve. Until now, sometimes a picture of a muzzle hole pops up three meters from the eyes in the eyes. Do not want anymore.
                      If there is a desire - go, pick, at least in turnips, at least in a melon, give, if you reach. Well, they didn’t. And life is not a movie.
                      1. Kite
                        Kite 19 September 2014 09: 58
                        +3
                        Quote: Irkutsk
                        Unlike you, I went with a stake on the trunk,

                        - unlike me, you did not see a cut of the barrel from 20 cm for a split second before a shot, therefore there is no desire to see at least once in your life. Which I wish to everyone, and explain my attitude to the issue.
                      2. Irkutsk
                        Irkutsk 19 September 2014 10: 10
                        +4
                        And at the same time, you offer to go empty-handed to beat a turnip to an armed inadequate. Knowing that you can be armed, this inadequacy can quite adequately begin to think - to live and you want to. I saw the trunk very close at the time of the misfire (the same feeling), and mind you, it was a peaceful time, army misadventures here are out of place to remember.
                      3. Kite
                        Kite 19 September 2014 10: 20
                        +4
                        Quote: Irkutsk
                        army misadventures here are out of place to remember.

                        - I did not describe the details, these are your fantasies. In my face, with a service weapon, one type was brandishing (!), It ended up as I wrote earlier and above. The fact of the threat of weapons may be different, but if both are armed, there will be at least one troupe.
                      4. Irkutsk
                        Irkutsk 19 September 2014 10: 31
                        0
                        This is what I had in mind my misadventures, I do not pretend to be yours. And when both are armed, most likely both will remain alive, they will simply disperse. Or do you think sanity is not enough? Is our people wrong?
                      5. The comment was deleted.
                      6. 1goose3
                        1goose3 19 September 2014 22: 11
                        0
                        With a service weapon in my face one type waved (!),

                        And would he swing a weapon if he knew that you had the same trunk? I assure you no.
                      7. aleks 62
                        aleks 62 19 September 2014 13: 25
                        0
                        ...... Inadequate people don’t think - they do ..... Now there are a lot of inadequacies in the East of Ukraine ... Ooohhhhhhhh ..... And you can’t see that they start off at once view of the trunk .... hi
                    2. Kite
                      Kite 19 September 2014 21: 24
                      0
                      I see they didn’t understand my advice - to give it to a turnip who is brandishing a trunk in front of you. Yet it is simple, those who demonstrate weapons, most likely, do not know how to use them, have no determination to use them. Therefore, either blow away from him, or look for the opportunity to knock out suddenly.
                      Worse with decisive, their shooting argument suddenly appears and immediately with grave consequences.
                2. pv1005
                  pv1005 19 September 2014 10: 01
                  +3
                  Do you want to be carried first heels forward?
              2. Alexander Romanov
                Alexander Romanov 19 September 2014 09: 02
                0
                Quote: Irkutsk
                So, your illegitimate neighbor will have an illegal trunk, but your legal one will not

                And what can not be reported to the police? Oh yes, I’m not a snitch. good
                1. Irkutsk
                  Irkutsk 19 September 2014 09: 08
                  +5
                  I will definitely inform you, but when the threat will be eliminated to me or others. About the concepts inappropriately, they are different, each with their own. And with the criminal concepts, I got stuck as an adult, even before the 90s.
                  1. Alexander Romanov
                    Alexander Romanov 19 September 2014 09: 33
                    +2
                    Quote: Irkutsk
                    I will definitely inform you, but when the threat will be eliminated to me or others.

                    And until that moment, my hut from the edge, I don’t know anything. You're done, that's right wink
                    1. Irkutsk
                      Irkutsk 19 September 2014 09: 41
                      +5
                      We are investigating a hypothetical situation where I can resist unbridled violence with the help of my officially authorized weapons. The correct actions, in my opinion, are described above. Be carefull.
                      1. Alexander Romanov
                        Alexander Romanov 19 September 2014 11: 42
                        +1
                        Quote: Irkutsk
                        A hypothetical situation is being examined when I can resist unbridled violence with the help of my officially authorized weapons

                        and often has this happened in your life?
                      2. Irkutsk
                        Irkutsk 19 September 2014 15: 34
                        0
                        Well, damn it, I repeat again for ..... The situation is hypothetical, that is, unlikely in the current situation. Well, you can’t carry weapons to law-abiding civilians, but I now consider myself to be such. Marshal and Logic ......
                    2. The comment was deleted.
          2. Bongo
            Bongo 19 September 2014 14: 45
            +2
            Quote: Irkutsk
            It doesn’t kill weapons, it kills a person.

            Totally agree with you! A weapon is just a tool, albeit a very specific one. And any tool should be treated responsibly, used for its intended purpose and observe safety precautions.
        2. inkass_98
          inkass_98 19 September 2014 08: 29
          +9
          Quote: RESEARCHER
          it will be with my chopped neighbor.

          And your shabby neighbor will be able to bring a certificate from a narcologist and psychiatrist? And go through a medical examination? And to take courses in the safe use of weapons? It just needs to be done not formally, but wisely. And the barrel is not worth 3 pennies, so your neighbor is guaranteed to use this money for wide and booze. The responsibility of a person who owns a firearm is several times higher than that of the owner of a traumatism.
        3. Midshipman
          Midshipman 19 September 2014 10: 08
          +2
          You are not reasoning correctly - if the chopped-up neighbor wants, then he will have it anyway. By the way, have you tried to get permission for injuries? I just wondered - you have to be a real fan of this business in order to fulfill all the conditions, so it’s definitely not possible for a chipped neighbor. This is if he legally decides to receive it ... And about the illegal I wrote above, and this is not even a question.
          1. Kite
            Kite 19 September 2014 12: 12
            0
            Remember, in the movie "Brigade", to the question: "Where did you get the trunk?" the answer followed: "I took it away from the animals." It may so become that a similar question will have a more accurate answer - which animals - hamsters!
            1. Irkutsk
              Irkutsk 19 September 2014 15: 38
              +2
              Afraid of being taken away from you, so don’t get it. Let others decide for themselves.
        4. volot-voin
          volot-voin 19 September 2014 11: 35
          +2
          Quote: RESEARCHER
          It’s bad that my shabby neighbor will have it.

          To control this, there are drug dispensaries that provide information, just like psycho-dispensaries.
          So I think your neighbor will not have a legal trunk.
        5. Horn
          Horn 19 September 2014 13: 02
          +2
          I do not think that your "chipped neighbor" will spend money on the trunk. He should take a dose.
        6. DanSabaka
          DanSabaka 19 September 2014 13: 08
          +3
          legalization of weapons does not mean that anyone can own them ......
      2. aleks 62
        aleks 62 19 September 2014 13: 21
        -3
        .... I wanted to shoot ????? ...... Go to the shooting range ..... hi
    4. Irkutsk
      Irkutsk 19 September 2014 08: 17
      +9
      Yes, stop, law-abiding citizens need weapons. But you need to develop a culture of ownership and application, strict selection when issuing permits, and of the application database. Not everyone served and have due respect to arms.
      1. Oldwiser
        Oldwiser 19 September 2014 09: 17
        -1
        The state is simply afraid of arming the ordinary population. The authorities remember the 17th year, so this whole anti-weapon propaganda is on.
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 19 September 2014 09: 35
          +2
          Quote: OldWiser
          . The authorities remember the 17th

          Well, yes, in our country a riot ripens. Crowds of dissatisfied filled the streets, the authorities in fear do not know what else to ban.
        2. Irkutsk
          Irkutsk 19 September 2014 09: 52
          -2
          There are no paranoids there, they are not afraid of this. Elementary disbelief in the adequacy of the population, like some on the site. Apparently, we didn’t grow up to weapons; above we have already given examples of monkeys with a grenade.
        3. aleks 62
          aleks 62 19 September 2014 13: 32
          -2
          ..... I wanted to shoot ??? You to the shooting range ..... If not enough - a militia to the East of Ukraine ...... Nonsense will fly quickly and from one type of trunk will vomit ... hi
        4. smile
          smile 19 September 2014 16: 46
          +1
          Oldwiser
          So you can explain why, repeating other people's crazy slogans, you do not bother to comprehend and evaluate them? Really not able to? :)))
          After all, in your opinion, it turns out that bad Power from fear forbids the population to carry scary revolvers and weapons of mass destruction - PM, but even more cowardly allows the people to have harmless smooth-bore semiautomatic devices or rifled carbines.
          Do you see any inconsistencies? :)))
          Or do you think that the shorter the trunk of a population, the greater the democracy, and the longer it is, the tougher totalitarianism? :)))
          I am amazed at the thoughtless repetition by seemingly normal people of the dumbest clichés that some "promoters of democratic values" or sellers of washing powders and MMM tickets have managed to sniff.
      2. aleks 62
        aleks 62 19 September 2014 13: 30
        0
        ..... And what criterion do you have of a law-abiding citizen ???? I even remembered actor Dibrov, who was taken out of his eye injury, a worker cleaning snow in Moscow, when a completely respectable and law-abiding high-ranking soldier shot him from an injury, I remembered Malakhov’s transmission when one quite respectable and law-abiding aunt started firing at a man at the post office what did he remark to her for a dog without a muzzle ..... Another list ???? hi
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 19 September 2014 08: 18
      +6
      The deputy head of the traffic police Noginsk, a police lieutenant colonel, was killed on Thursday night with a shot in the neck from a traumatism. His friend was seriously injured in the temple. The incident occurred near a local cafe: a policeman and another visitor to the institution could not decide who should be the first to ride a taxihttp://www.vz.ru//incidents/2014/9/18/706246.html
      To each trunk, wet, wet, wet !!! Nahamil-shoot, did not give way, shoot.
      With each conflict, trunks are used.
      There would be no weapons, everything would end in a trivial fight, and so some have grief, another shooter, will sit.
      Because of the lousy taxi. To whom in our country to give trunks, everyone is ready to spit in the neighbor and rejoice.
      1. DV69
        DV69 19 September 2014 08: 40
        +9
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        The deputy head of the traffic police Noginsk, a police lieutenant colonel, was killed on Thursday night with a shot in the neck from a traumatism. His friend was seriously injured in the temple. The incident occurred near a local cafe: a policeman and another visitor to the institution could not decide who should be the first to ride a taxihttp://www.vz.ru//incidents/2014/9/18/706246.html
        To each svol-wet, wet, wet !!! Nahamil-shoot, did not give way, shoot.
        With each conflict, trunks are used.
        There would be no weapons, everything would end in a trivial fight, and so some have grief, another shooter, will sit.
        Because of the lousy taxi. To whom in our country to give trunks, everyone is ready to spit in the neighbor and rejoice.


        The key phrase "was killed by a shot in the neck from a trauma." Traumatic pistols are usually not used for the purpose of murder. The owner of such a weapon develops a false sense of superiority over others, with a complete lack of understanding that traumatism can also kill, and very often without any intent of the person who used it.
        There are probably more firearms in the hands of the population, I mean hunting smoothbore and rifled. Moreover, reports of its use in domestic quarrels are incomparably smaller.
        Most often trauma is used not because they want to kill, but because they don’t want to kill, they want to punish, show coolness, etc.

        PS There was a moment, I wanted to buy an injury. He shot one friend from the traumatic pistol and refused the idea of ​​acquiring such a weapon. Too unpredictable trajectory of the shot, and this taking into account the fact that I shoot from a pistol regularly and not bad enough.
        1. DV69
          DV69 19 September 2014 08: 44
          +7
          By the way, there is no problem with revoking a license for a short-barreled rifled weapon from a person who had it with him while in a state of intoxication.
        2. shershen
          shershen 19 September 2014 11: 25
          0
          If a person is a coward and insignificance, he will remain so with 10 trunks, the presence of weapons will not change anything for him.
        3. aleks 62
          aleks 62 19 September 2014 13: 35
          +1
          ...... Trauma is a COMBAT weapon !!!!! Everyone is misled by the word "traumatic" ...... What come ... rock came up with it ????
      2. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 19 September 2014 11: 41
        0
        Here are the personal 7 minuses and no arguments. Here is the whole Russian mentality. Probably the minuses are because the people who didn’t finish the second, or from what’s going on, it turns inside out.
        Well, minus the rest.
        1. aleks 62
          aleks 62 19 September 2014 13: 37
          -3
          ..... Do not worry ... I'm on your side .... Do you understand - the children wanted to shoot ..... hi
        2. Funker1981
          Funker1981 19 September 2014 14: 57
          0
          For example, I put a minus, because I do not agree with your arguments, and I did not leave a comment, since I gave my arguments more than once in similar topics on VO over the past years. Once again write the same thing, I'm sorry tired ...
        3. michell
          michell 19 September 2014 20: 34
          +2
          usually there is reasoning that we drink a lot, the standard of living is lower, and in general the mentality is not the same. It is difficult to comment on racist discourse about what kind of allegedly inferior people we are, since this is already a field of pathological, irrational Russophobia.

          As for the Russian mentality, please re-read the author again.
        4. The comment was deleted.
        5. DV69
          DV69 19 September 2014 22: 01
          0
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          Here are the personal 7 minuses and no arguments. Here is the whole Russian mentality. Probably the minuses are because the people who didn’t finish the second, or from what’s going on, it turns inside out.
          Well, minus the rest.


          Alexander, and you do not consider my comment as argumentation?
          By the way, I did not set a minus.
      3. max702
        max702 19 September 2014 12: 12
        +1
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        The deputy head of the traffic police Noginsk, a police lieutenant colonel, was killed on Thursday night with a shot in the neck from a traumatism. His friend was seriously injured in the temple. The incident occurred near a local cafe: a policeman and another visitor to the institution could not decide who should go first on a taxi arrivedhttp: //www.vz.ru//incidents/2014/9/18/706246.html

        As it was actually not known there, it is very likely that the cops were obviously inadequate, and the staff grabbed for the trunks .. Everything is possible, for example, if the authorities were the first to do this, we would not know anything, but maybe there would be another execution by drunken cops .. The truth will be very difficult to find out too much if ..
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 19 September 2014 14: 19
          0
          Quote: max702
          , very likely

          Quote: max702
          perhaps

          Quote: max702
          let's say

          Quote: max702
          and maybe it would be

          Do you consider yourself an adequate person? One is killed, the other is in intensive care. What did you write here fool
      4. aleks 62
        aleks 62 19 September 2014 13: 33
        +1
        ...... Sasha !!!! Precisely noticed !!!! If it were possible, I would put 200 pluses !!!! hi
    7. FACKtoREAL
      FACKtoREAL 19 September 2014 08: 22
      -2
      Quote: RESEARCHER
      And there, and to MANPADS in each hacienda nearby.

      MANPADS, say ... lol
      expensive, however! crying
      but to have a mortar-"shovel" on the "hacienda" "exactly"!
      wassat
      1. Kite
        Kite 19 September 2014 08: 37
        +3
        Quote: FACKtoREAL
        but to have a mortar-"shovel" on the "hacienda" "exactly"!

        - test of possession of the COP - you did not pass! fellow
    8. granula1010
      granula1010 19 September 2014 08: 39
      +10
      For more than ten years I have owned traumatic weapons, during this time I really came in handy once ... BUT FOR THIS TIME, I WILL CARRY WEAPONS EVERY DAY.
    9. The comment was deleted.
    10. siberalt
      siberalt 19 September 2014 09: 10
      0
      The order is not against weapons, but for weapons. It is the author who does it. Let him watch the last "Besogons" how you can teach people to eat each other. The Russians have neither the tradition nor the need to carry a barrel in their pocket. Whoever needs it - let him buy. But to drum into the people that it is necessary for everyone is unacceptable. am
      1. stas52
        stas52 19 September 2014 10: 04
        -1
        A huge amount of weapons has accumulated in the world that needs to be attached somewhere, but here we have not a plowed field, a huge market. That's just the ban interferes. am
      2. Funker1981
        Funker1981 19 September 2014 15: 01
        0
        Quote: siberalt
        The Russians have neither tradition nor the need to carry a barrel in their pocket.


        Sorry, but who authorized you to speak for all the Russians?
    11. Carlos
      Carlos 19 September 2014 10: 48
      +4
      Now the exchange has Saiga-20K in the safe, Walter's trauma and Makarov's and Murka's pneumatics. Saiga and trauma used once, both in the air. Once, when junkies tried to take an aluminum barrel from the garden, they got injured against the punks about five years ago, and it turned out to be enough warning too. Six months later, there will be a period for rifled. I'll take a SCS and some melkan (for shooting at banks). There will be laws on short-stemmed, and I will take tapestries, probably Makara. I love shooting, but not hunting. The Caucasus only strengthened the craving for arms, but taught us to value human life.
    12. RESEARCHER
      RESEARCHER 19 September 2014 15: 25
      0
      I thought the votes for and against well, at least equally divided, but it turns out that we want to naughty much more. Why so much aggression?
    13. Max_Bauder
      Max_Bauder 19 September 2014 15: 36
      +2
      I don’t know about you, but I AM FOR a weapon.

      and inappropriately combing about women and children with pistols. let them at least allow the servants. After the execution of 30 years. why 30? before that, he is still young, hot, and stupid, the older the person, the wiser and more afraid he is, especially for his family.

      I remember in the Rambo film, Stallone said that in the war they trusted me with equipment worth millions of dollars, and I can’t get a guard as a civilian. Here everyone is serving in the army, shooting from everything, and here the eccentric himself or others will be shot straight by drunk. This is Russophobia, I will say even more - betrayal, to consider your people a moron. They all came up with the advice, after the 17th and civil, saw the Russian rebellion, and didn’t want it to be again, but it’s not too short that there is no rebellion there who is the right policy, people are not oppressed, enslaved. Now, too, a handful of oligarchs are afraid that the people armed with it may throw them on the Maidan, so they advocate and infect others with their idiotic idea.

      The most important argument in favor of weapons is what is happening in Ukraine now. The oligarchs will come, arm the people, brainwash, arrange a coup and they will start firing at civilians who do not agree. And the army will "sleep". How then can civilians answer? how will they protect themselves, the country? only armed militias can stop a local tragedy, for example, a terrorist attack on schools and so on, they will stop it, or one will start firing on the street, we had this in Taraz, a passer-by with a barrel would have finished it right away before he shot the whole clip.
    14. Vorlon
      Vorlon 19 September 2014 16: 11
      +1
      With this logic, my brother makes weapons. He issued a permit. Hunting. The barrel of his grandfather was copied to his brother when he died (he went to hares with a gun). He has 3 smooth bones. Two of our own and one grandfather. This spring I bought a rifling. He wants to fuse grandfather's trunk. I don't want to sell, a rarity. Hoped that I would mature and get a gun permit. I thought and decided. I do not need it (weapon). I participated in Chechnya from 1994 to 1995. I can handle him. But I don't need it (no "fool", no fool). But I am for the short-barreled. Because! We stand up for the production of high-tech production, we are happy for the designers. But they profit only from orders from government agencies. Allowing to buy, many will buy. You just need to make permission as a rifling.
    15. The comment was deleted.
    16. Nick
      Nick 19 September 2014 17: 54
      0
      Quote: RESEARCHER
      New markets, new financial flows, new jobs.

      Here, and immediately good.
      Quote: RESEARCHER
      If they sell this idea, then they will begin to agitate the townsfolk in the advantage of grenade launchers over car boors. And there, and to MANPADS in each hacienda near

      Any idea, without exception, can be reduced to absurdity. What are you successfully doing. Only MANPADS are specially registered and even in the USA are not subject to free retail sale. Moreover, even a simple AKM in the United States is sold only as an option for semi-automatic shooting. In short, the limits of the possibilities of acquiring various types of weapons are limited by the possibility of their use for self-defense. I can’t imagine how it is possible to use MANPADS for these purposes, but the PM is quite suitable.
      Therefore, I suggest that you do not carry nonsense.
  2. the polar
    the polar 19 September 2014 08: 09
    0
    Are there a lot of advertising material from lobbyists on the resource ?, who are ready to be sold to the first counter for a handout
    1. Funker1981
      Funker1981 19 September 2014 15: 03
      +1
      What kind of handout are you talking about? From whom? Under what circumstances?
  3. Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 19 September 2014 08: 09
    +2
    And what to do with exceeding the necessary defense?
    1. volot-voin
      volot-voin 19 September 2014 08: 17
      +9
      Quote: Mikhail M
      And what to do with exceeding the necessary defense?

      A normal self-defense law is needed to protect the defender.
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 19 September 2014 08: 37
        +2
        Quote: volot-voin
        A normal self-defense law is needed to protect the defender.

        Yes, there will only be one problem - to understand, and who was defending himself. The people are so truthful and conscientious that on the current ships the truth and nothing but the truth.
        1. tomket
          tomket 19 September 2014 08: 38
          +6
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          Yes, there will only be one problem-to understand, and who defended himself.

          Yes, whoever had more drinking buddies in the cafe during the shootout will be right, according to the numerical superiority of witnesses.
          1. Vorlon
            Vorlon 19 September 2014 17: 37
            0
            I do not agree. Now on every corner of the camera. In cafe all the more. We in Krasnoyarsk in the parking lot at the shopping center (it seems last year. As time flies) fired from lengths of Olov. The people (in the video) crawled out. It can be seen on the cartridge case, they will find.
          2. Vorlon
            Vorlon 19 September 2014 17: 37
            0
            I do not agree. Now on every corner of the camera. In cafe all the more. We in Krasnoyarsk in the parking lot at the shopping center (it seems last year. As time flies) fired from lengths of Olov. The people (in the video) crawled out. It can be seen on the cartridge case, they will find.
      2. Midshipman
        Midshipman 19 September 2014 10: 15
        +5
        The law is law, and when it comes to the use of weapons, then the question most likely is about life and death, and here it’s better to let twelve be judged than six.
    2. saigon
      saigon 19 September 2014 09: 29
      +9
      I don’t give a damn about the limit of necessary defense. Some sly term-limit - if there is a real danger at the moment you need to react to it and (limit) it is later. And it will not be easier for a dead or crippled person from trying to keep the limit of defense! An extremely strange position is to trust citizens with weapons without knowing how the people are drinking. And the people who drink can choose themselves to be deputies of all levels. It’s not clear. A young man is 18 years old, or you can be trusted to serve in the army more seriously, and the same person after the service, he becomes a friend to those whom he trusts in a fart - the gun is unoccupied. Strange among our lawmakers the idea of ​​a people about the welfare of which they cherish without ceasing and without closing their eyes.
      1. shershen
        shershen 19 September 2014 11: 30
        +1
        To determine the limit of self-defense, you first need to determine the limit of potential danger, but this can often be done only AFTER self-defense, especially if you have to act for seconds, almost reflexively.
    3. saigon
      saigon 19 September 2014 09: 29
      +2
      I don’t give a damn about the limit of necessary defense. Some sly term-limit - if there is a real danger at the moment you need to react to it and (limit) it is later. And it will not be easier for a dead or crippled person from trying to keep the limit of defense! An extremely strange position is to trust citizens with weapons without knowing how the people are drinking. And the people who drink can choose themselves to be deputies of all levels. It’s not clear. A young man is 18 years old, or you can be trusted to serve in the army more seriously, and the same person after the service, he becomes a friend to those whom he trusts in a fart - the gun is unoccupied. Strange among our lawmakers the idea of ​​a people about the welfare of which they cherish without ceasing and without closing their eyes.
  4. Loner_53
    Loner_53 19 September 2014 08: 19
    +3
    BARREL TO THE MASSES! And the only way! Do not assume that our people are worse than others hi
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 19 September 2014 08: 38
      -4
      Quote: Loner_53
      BARREL TO THE MASSES! And only so!

      Old man, what do youngsters kick you in the porch every day? Why do you even need a trunk to play?
    2. Carlos
      Carlos 19 September 2014 10: 55
      -1
      I consider it necessary to protect the domestic manufacturer in a future law. We will raise sales for Izhmash. On the site, probably, a separate branch will appear about the trunks of members of the forum.
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 19 September 2014 11: 24
        0
        Quote: Carlos
        .On the site, probably, a separate branch will appear about the trunks of members of the forum.

        Do not wait!
  5. Kite
    Kite 19 September 2014 08: 25
    +2
    I did not expect that the topic would be downloaded once every two days. Wow someone impatient!
    But do citizens want to discuss specific issues in the draft law?
    For example: 1. who will be given the right to purchase and wear; 2. What certificates and applications must the applicant collect; 3. should the neighbors also confirm the stability of the psyche of the applicant (does he not conflict over trifling reasons?); 4. in what places the possibility of being with weapons is excluded; 5. What is the punishment for the loss of weapons for any reason (any - because otherwise they will explain all their carelessness as the most harmless reason); 6. What should be the legal literacy of the future owner; 7. What physical training is required to ensure such a right (shooting from 10 meters is illegal, but point-blank - one must have the skills to repel the first attack and alert the weapon); ............ and a host of questions of checking the state (legal literacy and psycho-physical) of the future owner, owner, and weapons themselves.
    1. Kite
      Kite 19 September 2014 08: 46
      +3
      And when all the questions are answered, then the citizens will be able to decide finally - and tries to give them such a haemorrhage!
    2. Normal
      Normal 19 September 2014 09: 46
      -2
      Quote: Kite
      I did not expect that the topic would be downloaded once every two days. Wow someone impatient!
      But do citizens want to discuss specific issues in the draft law?
      For example: 1. who will be given the right to purchase and wear; 2. What certificates and applications must the applicant collect; 3. should the neighbors also confirm the stability of the psyche of the applicant (does he not conflict over trifling reasons?); 4. in what places the possibility of being with weapons is excluded; 5. What is the punishment for the loss of weapons for any reason (any - because otherwise they will explain all their carelessness as the most harmless reason); 6. What should be the legal literacy of the future owner; 7. What physical training is required to ensure such a right (shooting from 10 meters is illegal, but point-blank - one must have the skills to repel the first attack and alert the weapon); ............ and a host of questions of checking the state (legal literacy and psycho-physical) of the future owner, owner, and weapons themselves.

      What discussion of the project are you talking about? The Federal Weapons Act has long existed and is in force. There are already answers to all your questions.
      1. Kite
        Kite 19 September 2014 10: 09
        +1
        Quote: Normal
        The Federal Weapons Act has long existed and is in force.

        - about the cop ?? So why are you silent and just wrote about it to me. Encourage the fans, tell them how to draw up and buy a COP (short-barreled weapon). If you equate a cop to a hunting weapon, then this is not something that some people dream about (how to transport a cop to a sheathed and discharged one ?? They don’t understand you, specify.)
        1. Normal
          Normal 19 September 2014 12: 51
          +2
          Quote: Kite

          - about the cop ??

          ABOUT WEAPONS
          First read, maybe the desire to quit will disappear.
  6. 7776665554
    7776665554 19 September 2014 08: 25
    -9
    New intrigues of our enemies. "Give them weapons and they will destroy themselves." Like in Africa. After all, the level of mentality, development of Russians .....
    1. saigon
      saigon 19 September 2014 09: 32
      +4
      And what kind of mentality and level of development do Russians have? Explain please.
    2. saigon
      saigon 19 September 2014 09: 32
      +1
      And what kind of mentality and level of development do Russians have? Explain please.
    3. michell
      michell 19 September 2014 20: 47
      0
      usually there is reasoning that we drink a lot, the standard of living is lower, and in general the mentality is not the same. It is difficult to comment on racist discourse about what kind of allegedly inferior people we are, since this is already a field of pathological, irrational Russophobia.

      Once again about the mentality - from the author.
      You don’t need to cut all Russians under YOUR comb - either speak for yourself, or - as above from the author ...
  7. tomket
    tomket 19 September 2014 08: 33
    +1
    Despite all the shortcomings of Georgia, however, a real police reform was carried out there. About the police in the USA, we saw everything from the events in Ferguson. So there can be beautiful graphics on the low criminal situation in the country, is this the result of the work of law enforcement agencies? In general, countries to which the author appeals, as obvious examples, have either rich historical experience (US state of Texas), or an established, powerful legal field (Switzerland), or a truly working police force.
  8. Everest2014
    Everest2014 19 September 2014 08: 40
    +4
    In the country of a stronghold of democracy and light elves, a dumb shkolota with dad's automatic rifle sometimes arranges a funny raucer with piles of corpses. Following the permitted pistols they will also sell steeper trunks. What was Abamka carting about the ban on the sale of automatic weapons after those events? The lobby shut him up quickly and efficiently. It’s just that in the states, weapons are an integral attribute of a citizen, since they were there they shot each other for gold, land, and Indians who disagree with the situation.

    He found that article: “Rossiyskaya Gazeta” recalls that the tragedy at the Sandy Hook elementary school and kindergarten in Newton, about 100 kilometers north of New York, took place at 9.30 in the morning. The principal and five other female teachers were killed on the spot. Another victim of a terrible crime named Nancy Lanza was found dead a little later in a house nearby. As the police established, it was her son, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, who shot his mother and went to school, where he killed 26 more people. Armed with a Bushmaster M-4 semi-automatic rifle, as well as two Austrian-made pistols Glock and Zig Sauer, legally owned by his mother, the criminal broke into the school and fired more than a hundred rounds before shooting himself (“11 bullets in of everyone ”).
    1. Darek
      Darek 19 September 2014 12: 24
      +2
      Quote: everest2014
      He found that article: “Rossiyskaya Gazeta” recalls that the tragedy at the Sandy Hook elementary school and kindergarten in Newton, about 100 kilometers north of New York, took place at 9.30 in the morning. The principal and five other female teachers were killed on the spot. Another victim of a terrible crime named Nancy Lanza was found dead a little later in a house nearby. As the police established, it was her son, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, who shot his mother and went to school, where he killed 26 more people. Armed with a Bushmaster M-4 semi-automatic rifle, as well as two Austrian-made pistols Glock and Zig Sauer, legally owned by his mother, the criminal broke into the school and fired more than a hundred rounds before shooting himself (“11 bullets in of everyone ”).


      You have already been answered on this topic in the article: if you drive your mother-in-law to your country house, then this will not be in the news releases, but if you killed 7-8 people on the same machine, then please.
      So with weapons. If you, defending your own life or the life of a dear person, absolutely legitimately sent a couple of coves to the forefathers, then the press may be interested, but you may not become the highlight of the program. But if you shoot innocent people in the cinema or on the playground with the same barrel, then you will be guaranteed the first place on the air.
      By the way, most senseless (at first glance) murders from a gunshot are committed with the use of absolutely legal smooth-bore or rifled hunting weapons (a lawyer in the Moscow office, Belgorod shooter, etc.). And the most massive deaths occur in cases of air and car accidents. So let's forbid people to hunt, drive cars and fly airplanes?
    2. max702
      max702 19 September 2014 12: 25
      +1
      Quote: everest2014
      The principal and five other female teachers were killed on the spot.

      And if the director and teachers had trunks and they really could use them, would this tragedy occur? Why are there no such cases in Israel? Yes, because almost every civil servant has a weapon And they would have thrown this scumbag on the way to school.
      The weapon evens out the chances of survival, and the mess with storage is bad, but if the victims had weapons despite the weapons being easily accessible for the criminal, he would still be rebuffed, and because of criminal negligence, a lot of people would die ..
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 19 September 2014 14: 21
        0
        Quote: max702
        And if the director and teachers had trunks

        That's right, you give weapons to school.
    3. 00105042
      00105042 19 September 2014 18: 07
      -2
      supposedly there was never a tragedy in Sandy Hook, it was a dramatization, and the special services were too lazy or decided to save money and did not even take care of a normal cover. and they drove a fun legless patrol in a wheelchair, and at Sandy Hook they just showed allegedly heartbroken third-rate actors wandering from one alleged attack to the next, and that’s all. This fake tragedy was delivered only with spruce have another argument farmhands Abram to prohibit and confiscate weapons from naseleniya.Tolko here did not realize that the gun lobby is traditionally strong in SShA.Tak that forward novh terrorist attacks, shootings, etc.
  9. Leo7777
    Leo7777 19 September 2014 08: 44
    0
    Raise the standard of living in the country and do not need any weapons.

    Article advertising.
  10. MSL
    MSL 19 September 2014 08: 45
    +1
    Before you come to a permit for possession of a weapon, the police must not be one of those who "were given a barrel and a ksivu, and spin as you want." And the content of this LAW must be looked at closely.
  11. erased
    erased 19 September 2014 08: 47
    +9
    The right to self-defense does not give a person the law, but life. Man is endowed with the instinct of self-preservation. Trying to ban it is not only criminal, but also stupid. In a situation where a person is threatened with death or loss of health, he will protect himself as he can. Fist, foot, stick, knife, brick. But the fact is that not everyone has the melee skill, not everyone is ready to confront the enemy (enemies). Weapons greatly simplify self-defense, and firearms raise it to a degree of real success.
    Inadequate personalities will shoot at anything - this is also a fact. But such personalities are now being thwarted, using knives, stones, fists, traumatism, and even "left" trunks. It's about them, not about weapons.
    I wish the opponents of the resolution of short-barreled rifled and smooth-bore weapons to be in a situation where life hangs in the balance. If they survive, let them speculate about the ability to negotiate with bandits and criminals, about their calmness and ability to get out of the water dry.

    Do not want to own and defend yourself - do not dare to forbid others !! One prohibitor already exists - the state. It goes against all the norms and rules of life, protecting itself, and not people. To impede the ability to defend one’s life - to indirectly help the criminal element, to act as his accomplice. Sorry, but it is.
    1. Kite
      Kite 19 September 2014 09: 24
      -1
      Quote: erased
      But the fact is that not everyone has the melee skill, not everyone is ready to confront the enemy (enemies)

      - That's what I wanted to notice to everyone especially! Many consider themselves to be protectors of their neighbors, being lazy at the same time to take up their physical. training, mastering at least some hand-to-hand fighting skills. The weapon is not for revenge from an ambush, it is a weapon for combat at the closest distance (500J), the time to make a decision and to prepare is a second (human reaction time is 0.2 seconds), the specified power of the weapon is not able to overcome a light body armor (a deliberate attack, planned according to place and means), you have to shoot from the first shot at the weakest point, otherwise the answer is with your fatal outcome. What do fans of the COP dream of?
      1. saigon
        saigon 19 September 2014 09: 37
        +2
        At close range, the knife is a very good weapon and a little bit more proficient in knife fighting skills it will really defend itself. In this case, it is not necessary to do harm as from a bullet the cuts on the hands are cut off and the hunt is discarded very well.
      2. saigon
        saigon 19 September 2014 09: 37
        +1
        At close range, the knife is a very good weapon and a little bit more proficient in knife fighting skills it will really defend itself. In this case, it is not necessary to do harm as from a bullet the cuts on the hands are cut off and the hunt is discarded very well.
  12. Per se.
    Per se. 19 September 2014 08: 55
    +11
    Let's finally separate the wheat from the chaff. First, the right to self-defense and the right to lynching are not the same thing. Yes, the weapon protects, and any object can become a weapon here, not just a gun or a pistol. The difference is that a kitchen knife, stool or hunting rifle is used as an improvised means, without having the legalized status of a military weapon, the purpose of which is only one - the destruction of the enemy. Therefore, if, in self-defense, you shoot from a sports rifle (the purpose of which is sports shooting) or from a hunting shotgun or carbine (the purpose is to hunt a bird-beast, often, with a license), this, according to the status of the weapon, does not give the right personally pass the death sentence on defense, and you will have to answer for your actions in court, to what extent they were adequate to the threat. This is LEGAL, and it does not prohibit self-defense, but it does not allow substituting the judicial and investigative bodies of the state. Another thing is the legalization of military weapons, in our case a short-barreled one, and this status of a COMBAT weapon already inevitably implies shooting to kill, without trial or investigation. Again, it is not a weapon that is dangerous in itself, buy yourself at least a machine gun, but without the legal right to personally decide who can be killed, citing the sacred right of self-defense. It is impossible to return the Wild West with its laws in the XNUMXst century, the United States began as a country of bandits, adventurers and other rabble from all over the world, their example is not a panacea, just like the sales statistics of the "reduction" of offenses. The safety of society is in reducing social tension, improving culture, improving the quality of the work of the institutions of the rule of law in a civilized state, in disarming criminals, and not in additional arming of ordinary people with rights that even the state itself does not have (ban on the death penalty). And there is no need for crafty demagoguery, behind it, as a rule, there is short-sightedness, greed, cowardice, or animal whim. There are enough weapons, use, but do not pretend to be samurai and patricians with swords, or American rednecks, with their lynching right. I hope that normal men will understand, and for those who have complexes, the desire to visit or get some fat, play along with the weapon lobby, it's useless to say all this.
    1. Cthulhu
      Cthulhu 19 September 2014 10: 44
      0
      For itself
      My to you +. I want to make a reservation right away, I'm not for or against. Although I treat the resolution with some caution. At the same time, after reading this opus (to call the interviewee's literate and balanced answers, I can’t turn my tongue), I suddenly realized that my 50 kopecks "FOR" in one fell swoop ended up in the opposite camp. And now I'm 100% sure I'm against it. I will not describe all the incidents, inaccuracies and obvious distortions of M. Butina. I will dwell on the two most egregious, in my opinion:
      “To understand the magnitude of this crime deterrent potential, it should be understood that civilian gun owners eliminate, where possible, 6 times more criminals than, for example, the US government executes them, and provide more than 60% of criminals killings compared to the number of criminals shot dead during the resistance of the police. "
      Hmm ... this is generally nonsense. I wonder on what grounds the boom should be carried out? And yes, dear Ms. Butina! You are in philanthropy, obviously you will not refuse! Let’s immediately under each article of our vast Criminal Code, we will draw a lady with a scythe and all business. For example, a homeless man stole a sausage loaf in a store, and you immediately sentence him with a bullet in the forehead without leaving the cash register. You can still hesitate for a very long time, but to be honest I’m sad from the manic inclinations of such lobbyists, apparently connected with mental disorders. And at the place of the permissors, I would ask if the interviewee has a license for civilian weapons and revoke it under some pretext. To avoid, so to speak, as a prevention of the transition from words to deeds.
      Now the second pearl:
      "Only a third of the Russian population has elementary ideas about the legal regime of weapons, for example, that for self-defense it is already possible to have more lethal, long-barreled types of weapons."
      Forgive me, but you obviously do not belong to this third. How can you connect two concepts: self-defense and lethal long-barreled weapons? Judging by your manic inclinations, it seems to me that a person is sitting on the roof of his dacha with a screw cutter, and shooting from a distance of some 300 meters, anyone who moves towards his strawberry plantation. Well, of course, obviously an attempt to steal personal property. Yes, you can buy long-barreled rifled weapons for self-defense in accordance with the Federal Law "On Weapons," but it is not possible to link these concepts into a logical chain. Like a tank or a cannon in a garden for self-defense, rough, but the same trend. Well, and "ALREADY" can, as it were, uh-uh for many years. When by this time interval, "ALREADY" certainly does not fit.
      You can still comment a lot and go to the bottom of your heart. But I won’t. He who has eyes will see, he who has ears will hear. I just want to pay attention to the commentary by Sergey (Per se), who reflected the very essence of this interview. It lobbies not the right to own KOs and not the right to self-defense, namely the right to lynching and killing their own kind.
    2. Darek
      Darek 19 September 2014 12: 38
      +3
      Quote: Per se.
      It is impossible to return the Wild West with its laws in the XNUMXst century, the United States began as a country of bandits, adventurers and other rabble from all over the world, their example is not a panacea, just like the corrupt statistics of the "reduction" of offenses.


      That is, in your opinion, the Moldavians, the Georgians and the Baltic states did not arrange for the Wild West after permission for the free sale of weapons, but will we arrange? What a Russophobe you are, however!


      Quote: Per se.
      The safety of society in reducing social tension, improving culture, improving the quality of the work of law enforcement institutions in a civilized state, in disarming criminals, and not by additional arming the townsfolk with rights that even the state does not have (a ban on the death penalty).


      In other words, I and my relatives need to wait until the state improves the standard of living, the quality of the police, disarm criminals, and at the same time lift the moratorium on the death penalty?
      But the criminals somehow do not intend to wait. And I want to protect my life and health and my loved ones right now.


      Quote: Per se.
      And there is no need for crafty demagogy; behind it, as a rule, is shortsightedness, greed, cowardice or animal whim. Enough weapons, use, but do not make yourself samurai and patricians with swords, or American rednecks, with their Lynch right.


      And there is no crafty demagogy here. There is the usual truth of life. Is there enough weapons? I wonder which one?
      Judging by your words, you are not much versed in firearms.
  13. tasha
    tasha 19 September 2014 08: 55
    +5
    Russia ranks 4th in terms of alcohol consumption in the world. Those. we are a rich country and "tend to commit crimes less and drink more" ... Why then do we need a weapon of self-defense?
    A car is a means of increased danger, in order to get the right to drive a car, you need to undergo special training, a medical examination and pass an exam. I hope nothing needs to be told about the situation on roads in Russia ...
    I invite everyone to mentally imagine possible situations when you REALLY need a weapon for self-defense and then decide whether you are "for" or "against". The same police officers are given weapons for what? Because they are at risk and several times a day are forced to confront people who are inadequate or ready to kill in advance. Do you consider yourself to be such a risk group?
    Something I don’t see who wants to be trained in fire fighting skills and who keep fire extinguishers, hooks and buckets at home, although the likelihood of a fire will be higher ...
  14. tokens2
    tokens2 19 September 2014 08: 58
    -1
    Well, if the society signs in the inability to exercise control over the empowerment of citizens to implement "law and order" in some cases ...
    then it’s hard to require people to be citizens in everything!
    do not litter, do not spoil, do not swear, etc.
    And even more so, to carry out complex technological steps in production with maximum self-control. And we wonder why the rockets fall ... But what kind of rockets are we and Mars. The people are dumb.
  15. meriem1
    meriem1 19 September 2014 09: 01
    +1
    Quote: RESEARCHER
    It’s bad that my shabby neighbor will have it. But seriously, the Western model of the development of civilization leads humanity to degradation. Degradation leads to the transformation of man into a monkey, and what a monkey with a grenade is, I think you yourself know.

    Well, whoever grants permission to the chipped neighbor will unscrew the eggs. Do not think about the rest worse than they are. The crime is full of trunks and pathos. However, they do not scorch all day, as in the Ova action films.
  16. Nitarius
    Nitarius 19 September 2014 09: 01
    -4
    SHOOT the young lady-HEAD! and let her EVALUATE legalization! SALE AMERICAN BED!
  17. Russian Uzbek
    Russian Uzbek 19 September 2014 09: 07
    +4
    I am for the legalization of short-barrels - with both hands! possession of weapons ennobles, and crime decreases markedly (proven!)
    another question is that the whole thing needs to be carefully thought out, the legislative base should be put in place, so to speak, and, most importantly, clearly define the categories of citizens who can wear and buy it! self-submissive no schizoids, recidivists and other unbalanced! allow only the worthy! do you want to have a "trunk"? be so kind to pass the test ... both medical (psychiatric) and others! punishments for breaking the rules also need tough ...
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 19 September 2014 09: 40
      +2
      Quote: Russian Uzbek
      gun ownership

      Bugaga wassat wassat wassat
      I went out into the street without a barrel, well, who the hell are you? But I went out with the barrel and immediately turned into a noble knight, who could help. Whom to shoot at my head. In short, stop skipping, blow to schoollaughing
      1. Russian Uzbek
        Russian Uzbek 19 September 2014 10: 25
        0
        listen dude, you don’t have to simplify everything to the level of kindergarten!
        if your word "ennobles" is associated exclusively with gopniks and "who will shoot the boss" this is only your problem
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 19 September 2014 10: 45
          -1
          Quote: Russian Uzbek
          listen dude

          You yourself are a dude and girlfriend is your dude! You’ll talk in the doorway with youngsters.
          Quote: Russian Uzbek
          if your word "ennobles" is associated exclusively with gopniks and "who will shoot the boss" this is only your problem

          Tip-play less computer games.
          1. Darek
            Darek 19 September 2014 12: 43
            0
            But, my friend, you are. Yes, ss ...
            Yes, and Russophobe in addition (I looked at the previous comments).
            1. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 19 September 2014 14: 23
              0
              Quote: Darek
              Yes, and Russophobe
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. DRA-88
                DRA-88 19 September 2014 14: 32
                0
                Quote: Alexander Romanov
                Alexander Romanov (

                Sanya, hello !!!
                Not even that. Good evening!
                Spread a song to all moderators!
                Have Fun GUYS !!!
                I am now without irony, from the heart, so to speak! drinks
          2. Russian Uzbek
            Russian Uzbek 19 September 2014 13: 42
            -1
            advice to you: tie up to watch TV and read some sort of book! horizons expand ... and unknown words will not shock you like that!
        2. tasha
          tasha 19 September 2014 11: 29
          0
          What does it mean to "simplify to the level of kindergarten". Calling a spade a spade, actually.
  18. STALGRAD76
    STALGRAD76 19 September 2014 09: 07
    +5
    I personally have a "PM" traumatic gun and a "TOZ" rifle, I think this is quite enough for self-defense, but for the city it is generally unnecessary. I am categorically against the possession of military weapons, I am absolutely convinced there will be senseless victims and injuries, there are many reasons and in our opinion the most important is the psychological health of society and the social gap between people.
    At the moment, absolutely any citizen of Russia can become the owner of traumatic and hunting weapons, with natural health, skills and passed the necessary exams. And whoever wants to have automatic weapons, welcome to the sun, and the situation in the world is such as if we wouldn’t get everyone under arms ......
  19. Vasily T.
    Vasily T. 19 September 2014 09: 08
    +2
    If everyone has a gun, why then the police? The structure of the Ministry of Internal Affairs needs to be shoveled at the root and the prosecutor's office, too, as the controlling body. Crime must be fought by pros and not armed citizens. In the end, we pay them taxes for this and the demand from them must be appropriate. A reference, who wants and so get it, there would be a supply demand. It is necessary to increase the culture of behavior and not the number of trunks per capita.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 19 September 2014 09: 41
      +2
      Quote: Vasily T.
      If everyone has a gun, why then the police?

      Why, everyone will protect themselves from everyone
    2. Kite
      Kite 19 September 2014 11: 26
      -2
      Quote: Vasily T.
      If everyone has a gun, why then the police?

      - If you carefully consider and write down in law all the requirements for the owner of the COP, then with high probability, some of the police will have to be fired. If not everyone in the police will be able to meet the requirements, then civilians from the bulk even in the direction of the arms store should not be looked. And for those crystal clear that will meet the requirements, one more requirement should be made: to serve the citizens of their country in law enforcement agencies or in the Armed Forces.
      1. tokens2
        tokens2 19 September 2014 12: 14
        +1
        And for those crystal clear that will meet the requirements, one more requirement should be made: to serve the citizens of their country in law enforcement agencies or in the Armed Forces.

        And also to ban fighters with firing and military-historical films. Well, or the badge there is crystal-clear in advertising. You also need to think about rights. And also prohibit all words with the end of URA
        Yes ... and divisions of the national militia? During the Second World War? Not having elementary experience in handling weapons?
        In Russia, people were free in everything. And not only combatants. Yes, and combatants were so ... until the first blow laughing enemy. So say the advanced regiment.
        Offering Sparta? Why did Sparta not become Rome?
  20. Everest2014
    Everest2014 19 September 2014 09: 32
    0
    Quote: erased
    Do not want to own and defend yourself - do not dare to forbid others !!

    Are you robbed 5 times a week on the street with knives, shockers, AK-47 and F1? On Saturdays and Sundays, maniacs with chainsaws burst into your house and take away the most valuable: a refrigerator, TV, laptop and cell phone? For the new year, having put a bazooka on your head, are you forced to withdraw all cash from an ATM?
    1. Vasily T.
      Vasily T. 19 September 2014 09: 36
      +1
      For those Rimbauds who think that the trunk will save them, watch the video.
      ссылка: http://rutube.ru/video/937a72dae88120ea24a0935c0a44771d/?ref=logo
      1. Kite
        Kite 19 September 2014 12: 25
        0
        Quote: Vasily T.
        For those Rimbauds who think the trunk will save them,

        - absolutely correct remark! Exactly what I did not have time to formulate when I mentioned my incident of collision. If I thought about my barrel, and not how to avoid a shot and hit me, then everything would be much sadder and there would be fewer comments.
  21. zp35
    zp35 19 September 2014 09: 39
    +1
    Think about this.
    We argue that in the United States ordinary citizens put criminals more than the police.
    So there, the law on self-defense allows you to shoot someone who threatens your life or help a policeman shoot a criminal.
    But our law is that while you didn’t start shooting or poking a knife, you have no right to bang the criminal. Otherwise, exceeding the limits of necessary self-defense.
    Further. It’s no secret that in Russia some of the traffic police sell rights.
    So why do you think that some kind of dad will not buy a barrel with documents for his baby for his birthday.
    If earlier youth quarreled, fought, fled. Now there is a high probability that they quarreled, shot, and there is no one to disperse.
    The weapon in the hand gives confidence and a feeling of permissiveness.
    And some of our fellow citizens (of whom there are many) will begin to assert themselves in this way.
    They will feel themselves as kings (I want to execute, I want sweet).
    Well, again about the United States.
    In the US, the people’s weapons have been in personal use since the colonization of America.
    And the culture of handling him is higher than ours.
    For Americans, weapons for personal use (not everyone has the truth, but for the most part) as a household appliance.
    They are used to it and the barrel no longer causes violent euphoria. Moreover, buying a large labor is not.
    And for all of us, except for hunters, law enforcement officers, etc., it will be like a dangerous toy.
    Stormy joy, the desire to try, the illusion of security.
    1. tasha
      tasha 19 September 2014 11: 25
      +1
      And again about the United States.
      Their weapons are yes, a habit. Because the number of attacks and robberies in the United States is more than in Russia times in 5. I don’t need such a culture ...
      I once read that sales of children's body armor increased in the United States. I imagined ... I felt uneasy ...
  22. Niva
    Niva 19 September 2014 09: 41
    0
    who did not hold military weapons in his hands is afraid of him
    But how to protect the homeland
  23. dmb
    dmb 19 September 2014 09: 46
    0
    Guys, dear. It is not necessary to ask "it is necessary, it is not necessary". It's easier to understand "they won't let you." I bet they won't. They will simply be afraid, because tomorrow these weapons will start shooting at certain officials who raise tariffs and extort bribes. thieves, etc. And no bodyguards will help, even if the entire population is divided into two groups of guarded and guarded.
  24. The comment was deleted.
  25. saag
    saag 19 September 2014 09: 48
    +2
    Weapons give rise to aggression, for many it is a means of self-affirmation and settlement of disputes, but life is one, to prohibit "without waiting for peritonitis", Madame Butina is either mistaken or misleading that in the United States nothing happens when civilians have weapons, it happens regularly.
    1. the polar
      the polar 19 September 2014 11: 09
      -1
      Madame Butina is just a corrupt bitch, ready to trade for herself at least for herself, at least for arms
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 19 September 2014 11: 22
        -1
        Quote: Polar
        for a small handout ready to trade at least yourself, at least weapons

        Fuck, Polar, I agree with you for the first time. I did not expect this.
  26. zp35
    zp35 19 September 2014 09: 50
    +4
    Quote: Niva
    who did not hold military weapons in his hands is afraid of him
    But how to protect the homeland

    I’m not afraid of weapons, I was at war in due time.
    I am afraid of weapons in the hands of inadequacy.
    A certificate from a neurologist and narcologist is not a guarantee that a person will be adequate while holding a trunk.
    1. Sour
      Sour 19 September 2014 10: 48
      +3
      Quote: zp35
      I’m not afraid of weapons, I was at war in due time.
      I am afraid of weapons in the hands of inadequacy.
      A certificate from a neurologist and narcologist is not a guarantee that a person will be adequate while holding a trunk.

      Absolutely right.
  27. stas52
    stas52 19 September 2014 09: 50
    +2
    For those who believe that protecting their weapons from the company: watch from 5.33
    1. Max_Bauder
      Max_Bauder 20 September 2014 14: 53
      0
      Quote: stas52
      stas52 Yesterday, 09:50 ↓ For those who believe that their weapons should be protected from the company: see from 5.33


      This video just says that the weapon is not the right one.

      there is such a rule: took up a knife, a barrel ?! use it, otherwise don’t pull it out, they themselves will bang you.

      here is a video about it. The one who pulled out the barrel is not a man.

      we are talking about weapons not to wave them like a goldfinch at every step, climb on the rampage, try to scare, but REALLY REALLY in case of lawlessness threatening death, these are two different things.

      those who do not need a path and do not take.
  28. Leader
    Leader 19 September 2014 10: 26
    -2
    Do not deprive a person of the right and opportunity to save his own life and his own health.
    Opponents of the legalization of the short-barrel are unfounded and unproven; only emotions.
    You do not need? - do not use this right!
    The vast majority of weapons opponents are discussing the possibility of acquiring a pistol, as if it was a bag of potatoes - like, I went in and bought it in a store.
    Almost all issues can be resolved by law.
    For example, instead of intimidating the townsfolk, let's allow the constant wearing of the short barrel to those who have it in the service (police, military). Have they killed anyone in a year or two? - let's now give the right to possess such weapons to military pensioners (as a rule, these are still strong men).
    Is everything all right again? - Now you can think about expanding the circle of favorites.
    And so on.
    At the same time:
    - Waving a gun in a public place, threatened with an accident? - a huge fine, confiscation of weapons and deprivation of a license for 5-10 years.
    - had with him in a public place, being intoxicated? - the same punishment.
    That is, almost everything can be foreseen in advance.
    And to tell fairy tales, they say, "they themselves will shoot each other" is stupid. Conclusions should be based on examples and trends.
    I have had a gun for nearly 30 years - and have not yet killed anyone. It's even weird ... :)
    1. Sour
      Sour 19 September 2014 10: 46
      +5
      Quote: Leader
      Opponents of the legalization of the short-barrel are unfounded and unproven; only emotions.
      You do not need? - do not use this right!

      Hello ...
      That is, to whom a stray bullet will fly, I should not care. Why on earth? Do you want to shoot right-left there, and the rest should not matter?
      Few injuries in injuries? Yes, complete. And there are enough cases of their unreasonable use. Although they do not seem to be given to everyone, permission is required.
      Quote: Leader
      give the right to own such weapons to military pensioners

      I myself belong to this circle of persons. But against the legalization of short barrels. Because I perfectly imagine what a weapon is.
      1. Darek
        Darek 19 September 2014 12: 49
        +1
        Interestingly, a military pensioner does not know what a crazy bullet is?
        To receive death or injury from a stray bullet is the same percentage as a random brick from the roof.
        Are you just walking in the streets or constantly lifting your head up?
    2. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 19 September 2014 10: 48
      +1
      Quote: Leader
      I have had a gun for nearly 30 years - and have not yet killed anyone. It’s even strange ...

      Well, wear it in the service and there is nothing to rattle them everyday. Moreover, for 30 years you didn’t have to shoot at anyone.
      1. tasha
        tasha 19 September 2014 11: 05
        +6
        Here is a respected Leader in the service (that is, already included in some risk group) for 30 years, judging by the commentary, he never got into a situation when you need to shoot. A great example of the absence of the need to legalize short-barreled weapons.
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 19 September 2014 11: 20
          +3
          Quote: tasha
          A great example of the absence of the need to legalize short-barreled weapons.

          Nobody will object to you, but they will make a lot of minuses. For some reason, they really cannot motivate, but they need it in a cut.
          1. Funker1981
            Funker1981 19 September 2014 15: 44
            0
            But I’ll answer and don’t even put a minus. A single, or even a few examples, no matter how great they are, from the point of view of mathematical statistics is not an argument. We need full-fledged research. On the Internet, you can also find great reverse examples.
            I wish this acquaintance and everyone else that the short barrel will never be useful to them. But I am ready to carry it every day, if there is a possibility that he will be useful at least once in his life.
            1. Kite
              Kite 19 September 2014 20: 12
              0
              Quote: Funker1981
              But I am ready to carry it every day, if there is a possibility that he will be useful at least once in his life.

              - it is obvious that you wrote it in a hurry! If you evaluate all the situations and conditions of everyday life, you will notice that the ability to carry a cop will be in a minimum of cases (due to weather conditions (summer is hot, there is nowhere to wear covertly, winter, cold, a lot of clothes until you get out of the jacket, alas, will be needed) at the place of stay / visit, for health reasons, etc. ......). We multiply the probability of the current collision with an armed criminal by the probability of finding a COP with you, we get an infinitely small amount. Want to make weapons more accessible? Want to multiply your first chance? Just punks will be easier to take possession of weapons! (take away, steal, find)
            2. tasha
              tasha 20 September 2014 19: 32
              0
              You see, Funker1981, Mr. Vozhik, in his comment above, wrote that "Conclusions should be based on examples and trends." So I was forced to give one of the examples. And about all sorts of statistics, mathematics and so on, we ourselves know ...
  29. Everest2014
    Everest2014 19 September 2014 11: 45
    +4
    Quote: Leader
    I have had a gun for nearly 30 years - and have not yet killed anyone. It's even weird ... :)

    For the spent cartridge will not be asked by chance? In the cartridge case there is no dear fired cartridge case and the bullet passed through the cuts? In which case they will find and ask. But, if there are thousands of trunks in circulation + robbed shops with these trunks? It will be fun, the authorities will be forced to pass laws similar to those in the US, where a policeman, even seeing a hint of a weapon in his hands, has every right to open fire to defeat. For which the kids were shot with plastic dummies of real trunks. Do you want a gun at home? The planet is big, just move to where all this is possible. Somewhere, they are legally taking drugs, maybe they should be equal to them?
  30. Begemot
    Begemot 19 September 2014 11: 50
    +4
    Weapons are a way to change belonging to a particular group. The gun owner wants to feel like he belongs to a more elite group than the refuseniks. The hunter himself, I have 5 barrels, 3 of them are rifled, from Tiger with simple optics and PTF 2 weeks ago at night I put a wild boar from 250 meters without a night vision device. But there was never a thought to carry weapons, except for hunting. And the very fact of its presence is a risk factor. We had the head of the Security Council, (a former security officer), robbed some thugs of his apartment and took out a safe with a weapon. Two days later, two men were shot from a sawn-off shotgun, just for nothing. When they caught it, it turned out that the weapon of our SB-shnik. Not sat down only thanks to old connections. Now imagine that half of the population has a short trunk. Calculate what percentage of attacks can be successfully repulsed, given that the criminals know about its presence and will not attack from the words: "Can you find a smoke?", But with a bat on the head from behind, after which the pistol was yours, but ours began and will be used already in a different way: first, without warning into the air. Switzerland should not be compared with us. It is enough to look at the streets of cities and towns early in the morning. For a month I watched the same picture: an intersection, main and secondary, a stop sign is required on the asphalt, visibility is excellent in both directions, traffic is not very intense, 2-3 cars per minute, early morning. So, ABSOLUTELY all stop! Do we have this somewhere? Don't be fooled - NO. And no high-flown words are needed. Those who have equal rights and responsibilities, which are not written down in the Constitution, just in case, as we do, have weapons, but in fact, there is real equality and responsibility. Unfortunately, we do not have this yet.
  31. Dragon-y
    Dragon-y 19 September 2014 12: 01
    0
    Comparison of a 6-year-old girl and a senator opposed to weapons
  32. Everest2014
    Everest2014 19 September 2014 13: 13
    +1
    Quote: Darek
    So let's forbid people to hunt, drive cars and fly airplanes?

    In the territory of the Russian Federation, now the most widespread murder weapon is a table knife. I do not urge him to ban. Just look at the situation from a different angle, the drunken company did not share something, raised its trunks and outgrew not only the offenders, but also random witnesses of the triumph of self-defense.

    Quote: max702
    And if the director and teachers had trunks and they really could use them, would this tragedy occur?

    If his mother hadn’t had legal trunks, would this situation with so many killed be real? The school guard would have beaten this idiot and handed over to the police.
  33. Everest2014
    Everest2014 19 September 2014 13: 35
    0
    There is an even more advanced user of the Glock-34 legal weapon and the Ruger Mini-14 carbine, he killed 77 people, 151 wounded, and now he is in prison. He shot bullets doom-doom.

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Брейвик,_Андерс_Беринг
  34. Darek
    Darek 19 September 2014 14: 13
    +3
    For God's sake! Breivik, madmen of different grades and sizes, but where are the rest of the citizens?
    Why am I, a law-abiding citizen of my country, not a drunkard, not a psycho, not yet some moral I have no right in my own country, where most of the same normal people, have the opportunity to defend themselves qualitatively from an armed enemy or opponents ???
    Why can Moldovans, Georgians and Balts, but not Russians ??? Are we second-class people? Or does the freedom of armed self-defense extend only to "small but proud" peoples?
    Why did 10 years absolutely officially carrying a trunk with me, and then, having handed over ksiva, I ceased to have the right to it? Maybe I immediately became an unbalanced idiot and an alcoholic?
    There is one good proverb: "A knife is good when it is." The same can be said about the pistol.
    You can carry trellis with you for thirty years and, God forbid, you will never need it. But after five years, or even after a few months, a case may occur (one only!), When its absence will cost you health or life.
    I am not an athlete. Not a candy wrapper, of course, but I am far from a serious fighter. It’s not bad (I think it’s not bad) I own a knife, but I understand perfectly well that even with a normal director in a situation with several armed opponents, I will be of little use. So with what fright I do not have the right to high-quality and legal self-defense?
    Injury does not give such an opportunity.
  35. Everest2014
    Everest2014 19 September 2014 15: 57
    +2
    Like a cowboy from westerns, in order to defend himself in an unequal shootout with the gopniks, to defeat and give an interview with a radiant smile, right? And, the gopnik silently in the back is fumbling and the cooling body is robbed, he will not challenge. You need to be realistic.
    1. Darek
      Darek 19 September 2014 22: 56
      0
      Sorry, are you really a stupid person (wrote "de.bil", but blocked the site) or are you pretending?
      Where did you get the "interview with a radiant smile" ??????????
      Again, flawed, write to yourself?
      Say, if I’m dreaming, but I’m not capable, therefore, everything else is also a dream, but they are not capable either. Stop self-flagellating.
      No one is going to give anyone an interview. Moreover, with my crooked teeth, the radiant smile on the screen will look at least like a vampire’s grin, and at most like a mockery of the spectator’s nervous system.
      And yes, I am a realist.
  36. tokens2
    tokens2 19 September 2014 16: 04
    0
    In general ... for biathlon. Shortened. The Minister of Sports, to work out the issue.
  37. argon
    argon 19 September 2014 18: 09
    +1
    Quote: Kengo
    Have you personally ever witnessed a shootout from hunting rifles? If they are allowed, then getting permission for them will not be easier than for hunting weapons. My opinion, it is necessary to bring responsibility to those who issue permits, so that really inadequate people could not get weapons.


    And what is not enough traumatic? To protect more than, and even more. The last case: when a man was killed from a traumatism with three shots to the head. Want to have a hunting weapon - also not a problem to register. Why periodically raises the topic of short-barreled weapons? And who raises? those who have a mercenary (read: selfish) interest.
    1. g1v2
      g1v2 19 September 2014 21: 43
      +2
      I completely agree, for self-protection, traumatism is enough for the eyes. I myself love weapons and in the army I received a bunch of thanks for fire training, but I think that military weapons should be under strict control. There are plenty of examples of using injuries in domestic quarrels, even more stabbings, but injuries are not bought by homeless people. Shooting, or just in case, is quite enough hunting. For those who tell tales that weapons will never reach children or loonies, an example from his personal life - at school, a classmate brought a cop father’s gun, which his father for some reason didn’t pass after work and directed everyone laughing merrily. It was in the early 90s and it wasn’t a lot of fun. Another case, also from the 90s, a drunk cop on a common balcony for about 2 hours with a pistol in his hands coddled in front of neighbors, an officer, by the way. When other neighbors called the outfit, he was disarmed and fucked up, but asked not to write a letter to him because the case was drunk. But these are still people who are constantly tested by psychologists and whose weapons are constantly monitored. In general, I don’t know who is developing this topic with the legalization of the short-barrel, but security has nothing to do with it. For example, the development of dnd and giving them fixed weapons for business is one thing, and releasing weapons on the streets is a worthless undertaking. And the point is not Russophobia or discrimination, for example, I am Russian, but in the state of things. Now imagine the Maidan with trunks at last. In general, my opinion is, if you want to have a trunk - go to dnd or something like that, get a trunk for patrolling or training. But at home and enough injury.
    2. Darek
      Darek 19 September 2014 23: 01
      0
      Injury to the head is a criminal article. From a traumatic pistol, head shooting is prohibited by law.
      And if you follow the laws, then yes. Not enough.
      In our country, in which it is cold for three months and nine very cold, you should not rely on the fact that you will successfully fall from injuries to your feet or hands. Shooting into the case (in a thick leather jacket or down jacket) is useless.
      Think the rest yourself.
  38. Thompson
    Thompson 19 September 2014 18: 32
    +2
    Quote: Nevsky_ZU
    And we will have shootings as in Detroit ... fellow

    you went with your lezginka: groin-groin out of the window!

    In reply: The Caucasus rules! Waste-ta-ta !!!

    Do you respect me? (where in the provinces in a frenzy they swing a gun) look bro, what I have, PM !!!

    Somewhere in a beauty salon: " Girls, look what my hare gave me ..... you just click like this, to accidentally in your purse ... Groin... AAaaaa Duraaaaaaa "

    Excellent student, thoughts: I have a "4" in a quarter, goodbye to Moscow State University, my father will call it "moron", my mother will give lectures again ... Bastard teacher and half of the class or myself? .. Life is over ... damn grade "4" .... there from the safe ..

    Rather, it will be the first time, until the fools sit down, they will not kill the morons, and the bully will not understand that impunity is over. And it will become calmer. But not at once
  39. michell
    michell 19 September 2014 20: 20
    +1
    Quote: RESEARCHER
    It’s bad that my shabby neighbor will have it. But seriously, the Western model of the development of civilization leads humanity to degradation. Degradation leads to the transformation of man into a monkey, and what a monkey with a grenade is, I think you yourself know.


    Your chopped-up neighbor will have no short-barrel - go to the gun shop and see how much the service pistol costs. No narik will ever buy a toy with a cost of 12 to 15 doses. Also, does your neighbor drive a car? Does he have rights? I mean, for example, in our city, in order to get a certificate from a drug dispensary, you must first pass an express drug test.
  40. Everest2014
    Everest2014 19 September 2014 22: 10
    +1
    Brainless golden youth, full of money, drugs and booze heaps. Is it hard for such a down to buy a piece of paper on the trunk? Or dad will buy it with a gun. And, market hucksters who have everything fake and have money? One way or another, the abundance of official trunks on the hands will allow the same abundance to creep along marginal paws. And there will be westerns, will be.
    1. Darek
      Darek 19 September 2014 23: 07
      -1
      Here again, a one-sided position.
      What does the video have to do with it? And what does it prove?
      Only one thing: the BMEVe driver did not have a trunk. Otherwise, that kid would have lain down and didn’t even pickle. By the way, he wouldn’t lie down dead, but simply with a shot foot.
      After that, the driver of the foreign car would calmly call an ambulance for the shot and go about his business (for, for example, he fired from a revolver with a soft shell-free bullet, and the sleeve remained in the drum).
      All. Hallelujah!
  41. gammipapa
    gammipapa 20 September 2014 00: 31
    +1
    The theme is being promoted, not by washing so much.
    Last time I already expressed my opinion and got a mountain of minuses, but my opinion is conscious and therefore I sincerely believe in it.

    I don’t want to be allowed to sell pistols, I don’t need it either for you. I have enough weapons for hunting and for self-defense, everything is legal and not the first ten years have been registered. It is quite possible for a hunter to protect both the house and relatives and his plot with corn. Injury easily stop thugs on the street, no one will just contact you for dope. And if you’re not foolish, then they will quietly strangle you quietly in the gateway and you won’t have time to get the gun.
    I have never seen any difficulties in obtaining a license - the medical board has passed - get it, the training courses now have also introduced nothing complicated.
    If they legalize it, I’ll buy it first, maybe two, but I don’t want to, I really don’t want to carry such a piece of heavy iron, I really don’t want the local gopnik to ask me to smoke and poke a gun at my face.
    And believe me, leveling the chances with someone who has a gun in their hands is rather difficult with your gun, you try, practice .90 percent just can’t psychologically be able to pull the trigger and at the next moment they will get a bullet in their stupid head (absolutely deserved). And I wouldn’t hold in the hands of a gun, maybe it was simply given into the eye and would have been alive.
    BUT I think no one will hear, all the heroes do not grieve mother, put down the cons, ready to be demoted.
    1. Darek
      Darek 20 September 2014 00: 57
      +1
      Quote: gammipapa
      I have enough weapons for hunting and for self-defense, everything is legal and not the first ten years have been registered.


      Good position!
      I have everything, I can, I'm good. But the rest is not allowed. They are bad.
      Super!
  42. Darek
    Darek 20 September 2014 00: 39
    0
    Honestly, sometimes I am struck (I’m not afraid of this word) by the positions of my interlocutors and opponents.
    Periodically, I recall a conversation with a young man who, apparently by mistake, was a seller in a knife store.
    I got there by accident, just walked by. For a long time I looked at the windows with Chinese junk and Kizlyar crafts at unrealistically overpriced prices. There were Vorsma, and Zlatoust, and Finns (from the Motherland), and Switzerland with its usual "army" knives. The dialogue took place approximately as follows:
    “And for what purpose do you need a knife?”
    - Yes, in general, for everything, - I shrugged, - And cut the sausage, and for self-defense.
    “For self-defense, take this one,” the seller handed me a classic kerambit.
    - Sorry, but for the effective use of kerambit you need to know a certain technique, with which I am not trained. Yes, and already a little old to learn. Here is the classic - yes.
    “Please,” he handed me a knife, which would sharpen pencils at the time of first-graders.
    “Well, this is not serious,” I almost did not hide the irony.
    - But what is serious?
    - You see, the fact is that the knife fight must (usually happens) end in a few seconds. And even then, it's a long time.
    “Aaaaaaa,” the boy said, “then take this.”
    And he showed a certain bayonet-knife and machete hybrid, apparently dusting on the counter for more than a year. I involuntarily smiled, imagining how I would look with such a ridiculous monster.
    “Forgive me again,” I said with all my might, smiling, “but who told you that the knife fight, which should end in a few seconds, should end exactly with the murder?”
    After these words, the seller fell into a kind of stupor. It simply did not fit in his head how to quickly finish his own defense without killing anyone.

    Here on the site, it seems to me, is about the same. Some people don’t get it right in their heads, how to use firearms effectively as self-defense and not bang anyone.
    The firearm is associated exclusively with the "shot - dead" position and nothing else. Nobody talks about the "shot-detained criminal". I wonder why?

    And only one conclusion suggests itself:
    Gentlemen who write, we mean actively protesting against the permission to the melee barrel, they themselves do not own any weapons, or they are at the level of a user, but not an experienced user.
    Own uncertainty as a result of using a pistol (revolver) they project on everyone else. Excuse me, gentlemen, but if you climbed into the ranks with the pork snout, then who else is to blame for this ??? If you don’t know how to use this simple device, which is many times easier than a personal computer, then why should everyone else be the same de. Beat ???
  43. Everest2014
    Everest2014 20 September 2014 00: 44
    0
    Quote: Darek
    Otherwise, that kid would have lain down and didn’t even pickle.

    And now ATTENTION - this is a child with a plastic gun. Fuck mercilessly, all those who look like real weapons, right? Go along the forest with the pushed gun law.
    1. Darek
      Darek 20 September 2014 00: 55
      -2
      Ahhhhhh ... That is, the BMW driver is blind and doesn’t see that the child is with a plastic gun ??
      By the way, in the article on necessary defense there is a provision on imaginary necessary defense:
      "Imaginary defense takes place when there is no real socially dangerous encroachment and the person only mistakenly assumes the existence of such an encroachment. Qualification in such cases is carried out according to the rules of error in the actual circumstances of causing harm.

      In cases where the situation of the incident gave grounds to believe that a real attack was being committed, and the person who used the means of protection was not aware and could not recognize the erroneousness of his assumption, his actions should be considered as committed in a state of necessary defense. In this case, liability is excluded, since the harm was caused innocently. "

      Learn materiel, dear, and then pease ... write.
      1. Everest2014
        Everest2014 20 September 2014 01: 06
        0
        You repeated many times in one nuance: if the victims had guns, then perhaps they would not have died from the guns that were bought in stores. If the behi drove had a cannon, he would have fumbled on a sharp kid. It is impossible to visually distinguish a plastic dummy from a child’s gun from a combat one.

        Have I even misinterpreted the word? You are the lobby pushing the law on these lethal weapons of hidden wearing. Let's talk about equipment? :) There is no point in arguing with you.
        1. Darek
          Darek 20 September 2014 01: 28
          -1
          Understood nothing! Again what? And you, too, do not perceive the meaning of what is written?
          Maybe this is a hobby for audio books?
          Where did I write that the driver would "kick the kid"?
          Have you ever read my post? Or do you have the same "one shot, one dead" shiz?
          Well, in general, hands fall.
          You write, chew, you almost put it in your mouth, and they "would have kicked the kid!"
          It seems that you have to talk with the flawed.

          Quote: everest2014
          Let's talk about equipment? :)


          Let's talk. Just what? Do you have a law degree? Correctly. I have it. That’s why, before you talk, open up the Criminal Code, and then the Code of Criminal Procedure, and read something on this subject.

          Quote: everest2014
          There is no point in arguing with you.


          Is there with you? Only and much "with comrades" misinterpret the meaning of other comments.

          Oh! And the kid is really "chootky" ??? In the video, it is rather blurry. But come the lesson - that's for sure.
  44. Everest2014
    Everest2014 20 September 2014 01: 28
    0
    And by the way, Darek, I have never tried to insult you or doubt your mental abilities. However, you think I'm dumb. Where are such conclusions from? Are you a child? Then everything is clear.
  45. Everest2014
    Everest2014 20 September 2014 01: 50
    0
    Quote: Darek
    Where did I write that the driver would "kick the kid"?


    Only one thing: the BMEVe driver did not have a trunk. Otherwise, that kid would have lain down and didn’t even pickle. (your quote)

    Quote: Darek
    It seems that you have to talk with the flawed.

    Well, so much to me flawed. Only you are the crown of creation! Temple to build? Or wait?

    Quote: Darek
    Do you have a law degree? Correctly. I have it.


    What do you want me to carry about jurisdiction now? About legalizing guns? Go forest.
  46. Darek
    Darek 20 September 2014 08: 29
    -2
    Quote: everest2014
    What do you want me to carry about jurisdiction now?


    No comment.
    1. tasha
      tasha 20 September 2014 09: 05
      0
      Dear Darek. Having read your comments, I have to note that education (including legal) is not a sign of intelligence.
      And you are an impolite person.
      1. Darek
        Darek 20 September 2014 10: 03
        0
        Politeness or impoliteness are not generally a sign of the presence of the mind or its absence. This is a bit from another opera.
        And my, as you put it, impolite directly follows from impolite comments on my posts.
        For example, Mr. everest2014 unexpectedly began to "poke" me and more than once offered to "go through the forest". This, of course, is just the height of politeness and communication ethics!
  47. korol yasheriz
    korol yasheriz 20 September 2014 09: 10
    +1
    Of course, for legalization!

    And "we will shoot each other" - generally a cook's argument of some kind, from people who saw weapons only in militants with Schwartz wink
    1. tasha
      tasha 20 September 2014 09: 35
      0
      You see, this is just a young lady clinging to a simpler argument and speculating on it.
      1. korol yasheriz
        korol yasheriz 20 September 2014 09: 38
        0
        Maybe so, but the argument is really common
  48. Everest2014
    Everest2014 20 September 2014 10: 07
    +1
    Who wants to keep all kinds of carbines and shotguns with a hunting ticket at home - is this not enough? Wanted a gun? Well, drag PM, out in the immortal, they are now on bunk. The arguments of those who want a short-barreled gun are mostly the same - to protect life. Apparently they are robbed every day, raped, they walk under bullets, sleep in dugouts wrapped in bronick.
  49. Leader
    Leader 20 September 2014 11: 16
    0
    I repeat: in the question of the possibility of legalizing the short-barrel, our opponents (opponents of this) put pressure on emotions and unsubstantiated reasoning.
    I once lived in Estonia. When the ER separated (in the most gangster 91-92gg!), They immediately allowed a short-barrel.
    And there were so many printed howling and TV scares! They frightened the townsfolk: "We have not only the poor and the rich, not only decent and criminals - we still have a division into Estonians and Russians! Tomorrow an interethnic massacre will begin!"
    So what? Never mind! Several morons violated the law on weapons - and immediately received in full (according to legal liability!): A huge fine, confiscation of weapons, deprivation of a license ...
    And immediately those who wanted to "just shoot / scare" were gone. Very expensive.
    I repeat: almost everything can be foreseen.

    In Russia they fire indiscriminately from rubber arrows, because no one considers them a weapon. They shoot in the head - for a guaranteed failure - tk. There is no "slaughter" of the rubber-fire.
    The resolution of the rubber barrel is the biggest mistake of our lawmakers! And it is impossible to identify it (there are no clear cuts, the trajectory is unpredictable).
    Legal weapons do not shoot! because liability is disproportionately higher, and the owner is easily calculated.
    Opponents of the short barrel scare themselves and those around them with virtual corpses - do you think it's so easy to kill a man with a pistol? And why should the alleged shot be sure to be in the head?
    To check the readiness of the population and the possibility of legalizing the short-barrels, one can limit the range of civilian weapons.
    For example, a civilian pistol - 5,6mm caliber (.22LR), a magazine for 5 rounds, a bullet - only a shell (for clear cuts), power - no more than 200J. (and do not allow revolvers - because the sleeve remains in the drum).
    You, opponents of the short barrels, judge the capabilities of weapons by Hollywood action movies - no matter what the shot, it is necessarily a corpse; a pistol - at least a 12,7mm caliber Desert Eagle; he who receives a bullet breaks through the walls with his back, flying out of boots ...

    It’s hard for you (opponents of the short barrel), so I repeat - almost everything can be foreseen.
    And the violator of this law can be found. And responsibility must be serious.

    Our opponents like to repeat: there are so many weapons in the United States that there is a "barrel" for each.
    And they forget to add: 90% of these weapons are in the hands of 15% of the population. These are the military, hunters, collectors, lovers of shootouts.
    In Estonia, most of those who bought pistols / revolvers, after a few years they were abandoned - they played enough. The vast majority of weapons are for those who need it and for weapon lovers.
    1. Darek
      Darek 20 September 2014 14: 46
      -2
      Put +! It is a pity that only one is possible.
      I completely agree. And he himself wrote about this. Simply, gentlemen forbidding, almost all, with rare exceptions, do not know how to handle firearms. They do not know the principles of separation into civilian weapons, service weapons and army ones. And all there too. Fight in the historian like scalded! They will also have a drug-addict neighbor running around with the barrel soon, and alcoholics uncultured to the teeth will be armed, and children in schools will begin to wet each other, and so on and so forth.
      And what is interesting: when you begin to reasonably prove to them using the example of the former Soviet republics (yes, figs with them, the USA) that no one there suits the "wild west", that no one wets anyone indiscriminately, that it is not at all necessary "one shot - one corpse, "they spit saliva. And they already have you none other than a "paid agent of the arms lobby."
      It is not familiar to these gentlemen that in order for there to be a lobby, a well-formed business must exist. And this business, in the case of weapons, should be primarily domestic. You can, of course, also support an import manufacturer, but there will be no sense in this.
      Imported "toys" will cost an order of magnitude, and maybe even a few, more expensive than their own, and there may be problems with shooting and repairing. Moreover, we have an excellent base for the production of civilian weapons and ammunition for them.
  50. boni592807
    boni592807 21 September 2014 22: 50
    -2
    Mostly understandable.
    Against those who are protected or the security of Russian citizens is not a zone of personal interests.
    Also, representatives of "weathercocks". Today we are afraid of weapons issued on a legal basis, tomorrow the next end of the world and further down the list. It was said to stand to be afraid, that's all - "a big giraffe knows better to him! ..." Perhaps he will carry the rest.
    And the problem is the presence of a well-considered and effective law and its strict implementation. And here is the problem!
    Negative example:
    We have FMS, and how much, why so much and where are they, those whom they (the FMS) do not know so much. And why they (those whom it is not clear how many) are expelled, and their children are taught, they themselves are treated and their wives give birth to us for budget money, it is not clear. This is above average reason ... Probably with us they are our EVERYTHING !. And we contain this EVERYTHING and where it comes from, also the FMS. Can save at least at least them (FMS)? So soon we will close all social programs (pensions and salaries). After all, they go and go.
    Although, according to the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 01.03.93/173/XNUMX N XNUMX "ON APPROVAL OF THE REGULATIONS ON THE FEDERAL MIGRATION SERVICE OF RUSSIA", The main tasks of the FMS of Russia are:
    organization of control over migration processes and the migration situation in the country ...