M.Butina: "The number of supporters of the legalization of short-barreled weapons in Russia has tripled"

16 September 2014 314

Growing support in the ruling circles

The issue of legalizing the sale and carrying of pistols and revolvers as weapons Self-defense causes heated debate in our society.

There are quite a few opponents of this idea, but supporters, having united their efforts within the framework of the organization “Right to Arms”, have recently more often declared themselves as an influential force capable of changing public opinion in their favor.

In view of the importance of the issue, we decided to directly contact Maria Butina, Chairman of the Board of Rights of the Weapon, and ask her a few questions.

- What is the attitude of society in the idea of allowing citizens to defend themselves with the help of short-barreled firearms?

- The dynamics of public opinion is visible in the sociological studies of VTsIOM and the Levada Center, which have been published several times. If three years ago the number of supporters of expanding the rights of citizens to weapons (short-barreled rifled firearms) was at the level of 14%, now it is already 44%.

Increased and the proportion of fluctuating. These people at some point will make a decision for themselves after listening to the arguments for and against. But the thing is that it is difficult to bring negative arguments here, because now citizens have a weapon with a capacity of more than 4 thousand joules. What then to say about a gun with a capacity of 350-500 joules?

Citizens of Russia on legal grounds with appropriate documents and no contraindications and convictions have the right to purchase weapons. People who know about this usually do not object to expanding the list of available weapons, since the citizen has proved his law-abiding. This dependence was also shown by the VTsIOM survey conducted in the summer of 2014 of the year.

- Does the ruling circles of our country change their attitude towards the idea of liberalizing the law on weapons?

- Back in 2012, First Vice-Speaker of the Federation Council Alexander Torshin presented an expert report on the need to legalize short-barreled rifled firearms. This did not go unnoticed, and the reaction of the Presidential Administration followed. If earlier she considered the question to be irrelevant in principle, now it was said that this question, though not the most urgent, but it can be subsequently considered. This is a good move! At the same time, Alexander Torshin remains in solid positions.

In addition, in the LDPR earlier, individual deputies supported the liberalization of the law on weapons, and now there is support at the fractional level as a whole. By the way, the deputy from the Liberal Democratic Party Ivan Khudyakov introduced the appropriate amendments to the State Duma.

It must be said that the position of the elect of the people depends on the position of the public. And here it should be noted that the “Russian Public Initiative portal” collected 100 thousands of signatures in support of the initiative “my home is my fortress”. It provides for the possibility of the necessary defense of a citizen within his home in the event of an invasion. This initiative was supported by the Federal Working Group under the Government of the Russian Federation.

By the way, Sergey Makarchenko, coordinator of the movement “Right to Arms”, persuaded the Pskov parliament to introduce a legislative initiative “my home is my fortress” to the State Duma, and it is in the queue for consideration.

- It has been repeatedly noted that the concept of “necessary defense” allows for a free interpretation, which is why people who defend themselves may end up behind bars. What has been done to remedy the situation?

- Yes, our legislation is not perfect enough to justify every person who finds himself in a situation of necessary defense. Nevertheless, high-profile cases related to acquittals of the court change the attitude of the judges towards self-defense, although our right is not a precedent. We are moving from the particular to the general, and there are already precedents when, thanks to public response, media participation, demonstrations, we managed to achieve acquittals for Evgeny Kostrykin and Alexander Telesov.

Yes, the situation with self-defense is bad, but not to the extent that it is positioned. Every year, more than 600 cases of legal self-defense with traumatic weapons occur in Moscow and the Moscow Region. Notice that these are statistics only for traumatic weapons, and there have already been 600 cases. That is, people protect themselves, and the law justifies them, but much depends on the legal culture. A person should clearly realize how to behave in a situation of self-defense, how to testify, how not to harm himself.

If you are sure that you are trying to be imprisoned, and you are not to blame, then from the very first days contact us, we have a telephone toll-free hotline. We help with advice and lawyers, but we must contact us right away. If time is missed, then we already had examples when nothing could be done.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

michell

0

17 September 2014 16: 49

Quote: podpolkovnik
Quote: BYV
Have you often heard about crimes committed with the help of legal, SHOTED weapons? As for me, I am for the legalization of the short-barrel, but categorically against traumatism. A person subconsciously does not perceive trauma as a weapon, so he uses it without hesitation. In addition, shooting injuries is problematic. And a man who decides to commit a crime will get a firearm without any problems. Thus, a law-abiding citizen finds himself in a deliberately losing situation.

Upvoted. Al Capone is right - three gopniks came up to you and asked you to light a cigarette (call the phone, etc.) - if you simply politely answer that you don’t smoke, the conversation may continue in a way that is unpleasant for you, and if you show the gun and say - “Smoking kills!" - they will just move on.
Pagan

+1

17 September 2014 17: 46

Another empty debate - “give or not give,” “they’ll shoot, they won’t shoot.” The conversation will only take on a constructive direction when a weapons law is created. I emphasize, created! Not paragraphs taken from military regulations or police articles, but written from scratch. And already with this law, go to the State Duma and talk with opponents of the short-barrel about specific articles, and without rattling off other people’s statistics and without bringing a carload of arguments, to which they will give you no less a carload of counterarguments.
PS I am for legalization.
lawyer

+1

17 September 2014 18: 37

I'm for legalization
michell

+1

17 September 2014 18: 45

Quote: Per se.
Quote: Aspeed
Combat firearms are a completely different matter. Principled. Again, according to statistics, in 99 cases out of 100, a demonstration of a COMBAT short barrel is sufficient to prevent a crime.
I’ll try to object to you here: if one demonstration were enough, everyone would be walking around with dummies-toys, and, even more so, not everyone would be able to distinguish an injury or a gas pistol from a combat one. Well, you got the gun, the villains weren’t afraid, what next? Will you shoot to kill without further ado? Another option is that they were “scared”, but the next day, knowing that you were carrying a gun with you, they lay in wait and hit you on the head from behind with an empty bottle, took your priceless “pistol” and kicked you, well if they didn’t kill you with your own weapon. The level of aggression cannot be reduced by increasing aggression in society, adding armed ordinary people to the criminals, many of whom, due to stupidity, cowardice, greed or rudeness, will themselves increase tension and become no safer for others than criminals. Understand, a criminal is a criminal because he doesn’t care about morality and the law, he always has a head start here, even if he has a banal sharpening or a piece of reinforcement, and even more so the same or better firearm, the attack will be vile and unexpected. If you need a gun so that you can make comments to young children without fear... Here, really, it’s better not to give such people weapons at all, as they say, stay at home, “take care of your hands and feet.” How difficult it is to understand that it is not the arming of society that solves the problem, but the disarmament of dangerous individuals, the reduction of social tension and crime in general. Alas, selfishness, fear, greed, whim, and, of course, what kind of capitalism is it with private property and the thirst for profit, and without the circulation of weapons, shooting to kill, without “patricians” and “samurai”, who are granted to have their own sword, without looking back on the law and all institutions of law and order in a state in which, by the way, the death penalty has been abolished.

In order...
Regarding fake toys. Model toys of WHAT pistols do you mean? Chinese ones from a toy store? These are copies, as a rule, of serious combat pistols - ASR-45 and the like, but not PSM, TK, etc., which, as I believe, belong to self-defense weapons. What will you personally think when you see a hefty foreign-made barrel in the hands of a person, remembering that there is no legal rifled short barrel in Russia? The question is rhetorical. The same thing - in a situation where a short barrel is allowed, and a person has a compact pocket model in his hands?
Regarding the villains, a bottle to the head, etc. The question is - why do the villains need all this? Just to annoy you, to take revenge? What you described is a robbery by a group of persons, committed by prior conspiracy, under aggravating circumstances - with the aim of obtaining firearms. Open the Criminal Code, see how much it weighs. If villains need weapons, they will get them in simpler and less burdensome ways. It is also worth considering that when firearms are stolen, the police receive appropriate information, and for some time after the theft, the life of the swindlers becomes more complicated - I repeat - do they need it?
michell

+2

17 September 2014 18: 48

Next.
Regarding the increase in the level of aggression - who said that the legalization of short-barreled guns will definitely lead to an increase in the level of aggression? Since 93 in the country: 1. Gas pistols were allowed; 2. Legislation on bladed weapons has been significantly liberalized; 3. Long-barreled rifled weapons are allowed; 4. Traumatic weapons are allowed. If you adhere to your version, the level of aggression in the country should already reach the level of a war of all against all - but this is not happening.
Regarding the head start and sharpening - what can you do now to counter such an attack? In the current situation, your chances are zero, most likely you will die; the criminal assumes that you will almost certainly not give him any resistance, and behaves accordingly. With a short barrel allowed, firstly, the chances are already evened out, and secondly, the criminal will think three times before picking up the sharpener.
Regarding the disarmament of dangerous individuals, reducing social tension and crime in general - what are your suggestions? Only specifically and point by point. The legalization of short guns is one of the ways to reduce street crime - it has been tested, in particular, in the USA.
Regarding without regard to the law and institutions of law and order - what are you talking about? The circulation of civilian weapons is regulated in detail, weapon owners are regularly checked - both for storage rules and for, let's say, marginality - a district police officer came to the owner of a short-barreled gun - there is smoke in the apartment, the bruised surroundings are buzzing - what kind of report will he write to the boss? Yes, no one will sell a weapon to a bruise - they will cut it down at the approval stage from that same district police officer. And the bruise doesn’t have the money to buy a short gun.
michell

+1

17 September 2014 18: 48

Next.
Regarding the increase in the level of aggression - who said that the legalization of short-barreled guns will definitely lead to an increase in the level of aggression? Since 93 in the country: 1. Gas pistols were allowed; 2. Legislation on bladed weapons has been significantly liberalized; 3. Long-barreled rifled weapons are allowed; 4. Traumatic weapons are allowed. If you adhere to your version, the level of aggression in the country should already reach the level of a war of all against all - but this is not happening.
Regarding the head start and sharpening - what can you do now to counter such an attack? In the current situation, your chances are zero, most likely you will die; the criminal assumes that you will almost certainly not give him any resistance, and behaves accordingly. With a short barrel allowed, firstly, the chances are already evened out, and secondly, the criminal will think three times before picking up the sharpener.
Regarding the disarmament of dangerous individuals, reducing social tension and crime in general - what are your suggestions? Only specifically and point by point. The legalization of short guns is one of the ways to reduce street crime - it has been tested, in particular, in the USA.
Regarding without regard to the law and institutions of law and order - what are you talking about? The circulation of civilian weapons is regulated in detail, weapon owners are regularly checked - both for storage rules and for, let's say, marginality - a district police officer came to the owner of a short-barreled gun - there is smoke in the apartment, the bruised surroundings are buzzing - what kind of report will he write to the boss? Yes, no one will sell a weapon to a bruise - they will cut it down at the approval stage from that same district police officer. And the bruise doesn’t have the money to buy a short gun.
michell

+2

17 September 2014 19: 44

Quote: AlexSK
Quote: avia1991
Remember, how often on the roads scorching from hunting rifles? ..

Well, no need to compare a hunting rifle and a gun. In general, the shores are different. The gun can be put in a pocket and carried freely and covertly, unlike a gun.
Quote: avia1991
And a law-abiding person cannot, for the purpose of self-defense against such "shooters", acquire a pistol without breaking the law .. Where is the logic?

I don’t know how long I live, I have heard twice in my city that all times someone attacked with a firearm, mainly with knives and injuries, robberies, raids and showdowns take place. And you give me guarantees that these guns will not legally acquire inadequate? And just do not tell me about strict control. Given our realities, or rather the level of corruption and nepotism, it is very easy to arrange. And then a person may be able to show himself normal while passing the tests, and he will drink and demolish the tower.

Do you, in principle, imagine a system for checking bullets and cartridges seized from the scene of an incident following the use of an unobvious firearm? Find out first, and then write about nepotism and corruption. A shell casing from the crime scene is about the same level of evidence as fingerprints - i.e. absolutely undeniable. If an idiot uses a weapon without proper reason, he will be identified within 24 hours, and no godfather will harness the responsibility of an idiot firing left and right from a legitimate gun.
1. AlexSK
  
  -2
  
  17 September 2014 21: 19
  
  Quote: michell
  If an idiot uses a weapon without proper reason, he will be identified within 24 hours, and no godfather will harness the responsibility of an idiot firing left and right from a legitimate gun.
  
  If an inadequate person uses a weapon, then it will be deeply clear to me or anyone else whether he will be figured out or not. And I’m sure there are plenty of such inadequate people, some who are shell-shocked in life, some who blow their minds out of drunkenness, etc.
  Quote: michell
  Do you, in principle, imagine a system for checking bullets and cartridges seized from the scene of an incident following the use of an unobvious firearm? Find out first, and then write about nepotism and corruption.
  
  In principle I can imagine. But I also imagine, or rather, I know how you can get certain documents and certificates from us. A bunch of purchased diplomas, licenses, medical certificates (including for the purchase of weapons), etc. All this gives me no doubt that such things are quite possible in our country.
  1. michell
    
    0
    
    18 September 2014 18: 19
    
    Then let's ban personal cars - more people die on our country's roads every year than during the ten years of war in Afghanistan.
  2. michell
    
    0
    
    18 September 2014 18: 19
    
    Then let's ban personal cars - more people die on our country's roads every year than during the ten years of war in Afghanistan.
Andriuha077

0

18 September 2014 00: 00

Author: Maria Butina
You just need to understand that the process of reorganization towards expanding the reservist element is already taking place, even if few people know about it.
...only upon transition to completely voluntary, unpaid principles of a very massive reserve (backed up, for example, tax_deductions or additional tax penalties for evaders, as in Switzerland).
Its full deployment is possible only with the transition to completely voluntary, gratuitous principles of a very massive reserve (supported, for example, by tax deductions or additional tax penalties for evaders, as in Switzerland). This is a task not only for the state, but also for civil society.
vooruzhen.ru/news/151/7207/
Andriuha077

+1

18 September 2014 09: 32

M. Butina: “The thesis that we will shoot each other - Russophobia и racism»
vooruzhen.ru/news/139/7367/
But the most obvious argument against the thesis “everyone will shoot each other” is due to the fact that Russian citizens already have more than 7 million units of legal civilian weapons in their hands, which are much more dangerous than pistols. These are many times more destructive long-barreled weapons or forensically unidentifiable “traumatics”. However, even these volumes of more risky types of weapons among citizens do not actually participate in crime, being tens of times safer than, for example, cars.

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 understand the magnitude of this crime-deterrent potential, it must be understood that civilian gun owners eliminate, where possible, 6 times more criminals than the US government executes, for example, and account for more than 60% of crime eradications.

By the way, the government itself, solely for self-defense, provides pistols not only to police and army officers, but also, for example, to investigators, prosecutors, judges, and civil servants in general.
fktrcfylhn61

0

18 September 2014 12: 15

Against, against, against. Do you really want to be meat?
saygon66

0

18 September 2014 16: 23

- I don’t know, maybe it’s off topic... In one of the chain stores, a “dating” buyer refuses to pay for a bottle of cognac - they say, “he brought it with him, he bought it in another store...”. Video surveillance shows a man stupidly stealing cognac from a display case. The controller, such a strong guy, confiscates the cognac, throws the man out the door - the man sits in the doorway, demands the cognac back, compensation for the taxi he sent, and a police detail - “we’ll sort it out...”
- A couple of splashes, I think, would have solved the matter, BUT! The controller is a well-mannered and law-abiding person, and he calls the State Bureau of Investigation....
“We’re coming,” a man with courage... greets us in “naval” words, demands cognac, money for a taxi, dismissal of the controller, and at the same time explains to us our rights...
- And, again, a couple of splashes - and the status quo is restored... BUT! We have an instruction - no violence... kindly, only kindly... and a squad from the department is called!
- The outfit arrives, and then this begins... “The prince in disguise is walking around the buffet...”! The peasant, who was still afraid of the rogues, goes on a tour - scatters banknotes in the back room, demands the policemen to “take away” the GBR, asks us for a pistol to shoot the outfit, everything in the same spirit...
- If only he could put some sense into it - no, everything is according to the law: You never know who will write something in the report later... and a video, again... While they were collecting explanatory notes - for about forty minutes, the man was not being childish, everyone got it! And the SBI, and alongside, and the controller, and the store staff... They took the guy to the department, I don’t know what happened to him after that - I don’t know, but if everything there was “according to the law,” then, apparently, he came out a hero - hero! Law-abiding, you...
fax66

0

18 September 2014 18: 35

I don't want to offend anyone, but...
Only marginal ladies or notorious guys who have not shot in the army can insist on legalizing the sale of weapons (I don’t take the other extreme - they are too accustomed to shooting in the army or somewhere else, but this is a question for psychotherapists).
Let me briefly answer some of the arguments:
1) if you want to protect your house, buy a hunting weapon;
2) and there is so much on hand - what, do you want it to become even more?
3) personal protection (wife, children, beloved grandmother, disabled uncle, etc.) from thugs - in order to be ready to adequately use weapons against a person, you need long-term training, including psychological (otherwise you will either shoot everyone around or they will take away your weapons and shoot you yourself). And with our order and compliance with norms, rules, etc. this will turn into the procedure of “obtaining a medical certificate for the traffic police.”
Well. enough for now...

Just think: 95% of Russian citizens are simple, peace-loving people who do not want and are not ready to shoot or kill anyone (even if you put a gun in their pocket). And I don’t want to put weapons in the hands of everyone who is ready to do so. Then people will definitely be afraid to walk the streets, afraid to stand up for the weak and fight back boors and hooligans, etc.
1. saygon66
  
  0
  
  18 September 2014 18: 59
  
  - Yes, what grievances... It seems to me that the massacre is for the RIGHT to have a short-barreled gun... But not everyone will be able or willing to exercise this right. Well, roughly the same as with the right to freely leave the country (it also didn’t exist once) - theoretically everyone can get away with it, but in practice - why the hell do they need it, and there’s no money...
  - So from the conversation it is clear that the percentage of those who want to buy a “kulimet” is not so large... and also the paperwork, storage conditions, and PRICE!!! We have used Trauma is offered in the store for 11(!) kilorubles! New 15-25! The prices for cartridges are no less, the rental range at the shooting range is 1 hours! Or maybe beer would be better?
Viktor.N.Aleksandrov.

+1

18 September 2014 21: 13

Lord, how tired of these... that they consider their people cattle, who don’t understand anything, but only drink and beat! All nations are normal, only we, sinners, turn out to be some kind of headless people who constantly need a nanny who will wipe their sniffles and put us in a corner for supposedly unreasonable behavior! It turns out we can’t have a pistol, otherwise we’ll start shooting left and right for no reason and we’ll hurt these smart, reasonable, well, in general, those same ones from the fifth column, who are the Russian people just like I indicated above , and they count. Yes, and they got rude from somewhere, they poke and insult recklessly, they are the smartest, they can be put in the place of a stupid Russian (Russian) man. If you don’t like it, go to your favorite small Britain, and we in Russia will somehow do the cleaning ourselves. We, of course, can cope this way, but if we were allowed to legally own and carry short-barreled firearms, it would become easier. But, of course, I have smooth-bore, and traumatic, and cold-bore weapons, and even so, with my hands, I can do something. But I feel bad for the state and the people!
Chisxnumxdiman

+1

18 September 2014 22: 21

Let me express my opinion, but don't criticize too much. Regarding short-barreled guns, I can say the following. I would ban injury and gas pistols. People don’t take them seriously. That’s where all the problems come from. But civilian short-barreled guns can be issued, but taking into account the experience of owning smooth-bore hunting weapons, after 5 years. So the same as with rifled barrels, then there will be more order. I have an SKS, but I have no desire to shoot left and right with it.
exiv200gt

0

19 September 2014 06: 31

Here are today's newspaper reports:

Six people killed in shooting in Florida
It turned out that the shooting in Bell was carried out by a 51-year-old local resident. He shot his own daughter and her six children.
The man then reported the incident to the police. He committed suicide before officers arrived, Reuters reports.
1. Viktor.N.Aleksandrov.
  
  +1
  
  19 September 2014 20: 53
  
  The example is not entirely on topic. This can happen with the help of a hunting weapon or with the help of the notorious kitchen knife.
Dudya

0

19 September 2014 10: 05

A week ago I was attacked on the street, I was walking home from the store, I feel something wrong, I raise my head, I look at the meeting guy (about 17-20 years old, he looks like he’s from an intellectual family, he’s dressed well, he’s tall, he’s smiling kindly), there’s about 5 people behind him, not a distance of meters The 8th guy is coming straight at me, but I decided to let him through (out of fear, I didn’t react to the threat right away, I hoped that the guy wouldn’t take it off.) The guy comes up close and carefully puts his hand on my neck and also carefully leads me to meet those five idiots. Well, I figured out the situation a little bit and then the damn thing started to break out, I just came to my senses, I saw this guy standing in front like it was 1 on 1 (I couldn’t run away from them anymore) the rest were on the edge, well, I decided, come what may, I rushed at this guy like let's ride him, the rest of the family were scared at first, but then, realizing the insignificance of my threat, they immediately attacked me and started beating me again with renewed rage, pressed me to a tree, and then they fucked me with something (most likely with their foot) right in the temple, so what's wrong with me? where there was a tree, my face was swollen (my head was pressed against the tree) I screamed, well, they’re like wolves, like a couple of guys, come on, come on (it was during the day on the main street).

I came to the police to write a statement in the duty room, apparently the major (a big star) sits and smokes right in the workplace, but there’s not enough whiskey (in general, it violates public order), but they don’t give a fuck about such things, they just accepted the statement.
Who was that? I have no idea about such enemies, no thoughts on this topic, a lot of bastards, VIPs, robbers, Khokhlyat Banderaites, but whoever was at the censor knows perfectly well that they are openly planning such things there, supposedly they can’t be distinguished from Russians, they came in like refugees and set about their favorite activity, I can say one thing, they acted very professionally, from the outside it looked as if my friends and I were having fun. And we don’t even have anything to defend ourselves against such people. The cops don’t care if anything happens with weapons behind iron doors with young lieutenants.
PS. Guys, don’t expose your smart heads, carry weapons with you, no matter what legal or legal or life, so you will have the opportunity to defend your honor.
PS2. Guys, carry weapons and valuables hidden only on your body, your bag is the first thing they will rip off you.
Prometey

0

19 September 2014 12: 53

In fact, such decisions can only be made after a national referendum. Personally, I am against the legalization of firearms, especially in connection with the ever-increasing number of psychos on the roads. And there are no reasons in the country at the moment for making such a decision. Still, the cases with the village of Khushchevskaya are the exception rather than the rule. Society needs to instill a legal culture and ethics from childhood, and not push us into primitive discord. The author of the idea of legalizing weapons should be sent to Somalia, everything is fine there.
1. Viktor.N.Aleksandrov.
  
  +1
  
  19 September 2014 20: 58
  
  The idea of a referendum is not new. At the same time, it would not hurt to hold a referendum on the return of the death penalty in Russia and the confiscation of property from our millionaire thieves (and their relatives). Otherwise, they steal millions, but only pennies are returned. Only our Duma will not make such a decision - they themselves are in a cannon!
tracer

+1

19 September 2014 17: 28

Weapons don't kill. People are killing....A country that threw yesterday's boys into bloody local wars, made them into seasoned fighters and patriots, simply cannot help but allow its citizens to own weapons, including short-barreled weapons. Not all people want to buy a gun. Not everyone. But those who want to do this must be provided with all legal conditions. And the example of America is also very indicative. For example, I was recently in Texas, and there are plenty of weapons everywhere you want. Buying it in a store is not a problem (documents are checked for criminal records and that’s all).. It seems like “everyone there has a gun”, but they shoot at every turn. This is according to some ordinary people. However, statistically, Texas has the least number of crimes involving firearms in the United States. Facts are stubborn things. Legal possession of short-barreled firearms, in my opinion, will significantly reduce the number of crimes, since any criminal will know that in response to his encroachment on someone else’s life and health, a hot bullet will be waiting for him.
Loki_2

0

22 September 2014 18: 26

I am against gun legalization.
But if they allow the sale, I’ll buy 2 pieces for myself and my son (so that he won’t be afraid to go to school ). And God forbid someone looks at me askance on the street or breaks into my house, my fortress...

I think everyone understands the consequences of selling weapons to the population. Only law enforcement officers have the right to carry and use weapons. And armed people are polite people this is from the evil one...