From the beginning, there are just two examples out of hundreds that I have:
Example N 1… Citizen M. lived in the hatch of the city heating system. However, in his meager possessions were an F-1 grenade and a 12-gauge shotgun sawn-off shotgun. Once, walking around the city in a light drink, M. fired into a huge mirrored shop window, admired the waterfall of fragments and went to his hatch to rest, where he was successfully detained by police officers.
Example N 2… Citizen A. worked as a watchman of a gardening partnership, and lived here without a registration. Once, on the territory entrusted to him, he found an outside car, next to which a drunk company had settled down for a picnic in the fresh air. A., as expected, made a remark to the violators and, as is the custom in recent times, was sent to the address that has long been known in Russia. After that, our hero left, but not to the place where he was sent, but to his hut, where he had several RGD-5 grenades. Taking one of them, he returned, pulled out the pin and neatly blew up the car of the violators.
These simple examples are the best fit for testing the arguments of opponents of the right of citizens to own weapons. Recently, three State Duma deputies, including the head of the Security Committee, voiced their proposals on regulating the firearms market in one of the television programs. Among those were: toughening the rules for issuing licenses for it, a special psychiatric examination of future buyers of weapons, periodic visits to gun owners by district inspectors, and the deputies themselves want to force the owners to retake exams on the rules of possession of firearms and traumatic weapons from time to time. The deputies spoke enthusiastically and were clearly pleased with their own proposals to make the yoke of a citizen who already spends his whole life within the narrow framework of prohibitions and restrictions. Why such a dislike for him? And how will these restrictive measures affect M. and A.? Which inspector will visit M. in the sewer, who will send A. for a psychiatric examination. Who will finally deprive them of the right to have combat grenades, a right that they themselves freely appropriated to themselves, and which the owners do not even think about?
It should be noted that M. and A. are not alone, they are representatives of a tribe of many thousands of offenders who do not follow any rules and do not comply with any laws! Alas, the legislators simply did not think about it. Because they simply do not know either Example 1, Example 2, or thousands of other examples, and while preparing for the transfer (or rather, not preparing), they did not bother to request at least some invoice from the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
And this is not an isolated case. Such legislative initiatives are always (!!!) offered without any reliance on statistics or any serious research. I have been dealing with this issue for more than 30 years and therefore I speak, relying not on emotional reasoning, but on real figures, materials of criminal cases, sociological surveys, long-term observations.
And the numbers say the following. In Russia, only 2% of legally acquired weapons are used to commit crimes. And all these 2% are crimes committed on domestic grounds, as a rule, in a state of passion, delirium tremens, or when the limits of necessary defense are exceeded. In street robberies, let alone raids on exchangers or contract killings, you will never find legal guns or carbines.Because not a single normal person will make a sawn-off shotgun from an officially registered weapon and go with it to rob collectors. We see the same picture in the United States, where weapons are easier to acquire than ours, and until recently there were half as many murders. There, too, with all the abundance of opportunities, less than 2% of officially registered guns get into crime reports.
Incompetent opponents of the short-barreled weapon are trying to prove that the already permitted self-defense weapons, traumatics, stun guns, gas pistols, aerosols are quite enough to protect them … But when studying more than 500 criminal cases in which such weapons appear, I have not a single (!!!) fact of successful self-defense not found. But the crimes with their use - not one or two, but dozens. Because law-abiding citizens use the means of self-defense as required by the instructions and the law. That is, it is allowed to shoot from a gas weapon no closer than from a meter distance, you cannot shoot from a traumatic weapon in the head, in the face, you cannot shoot at close range …
These instructions were drawn up by the Ministry of Internal Affairs on the basis of the conclusions of the Ministry of Health, which makes sure that no harm is caused to the health of a person, even a criminal. But we are not talking about medicines and vitamins! It turns out that a law-abiding defender with the help of non-lethal weapons obviously cannot cause harm to the attacker, which means that the attacker is not afraid of such weapons!
The most deadly weapons in Russia, with the help of which two-thirds of the murders in the country are committed: an ax (1), a kitchen knife (2), a hammer (3)
Criminals just spit on all restrictions. They shoot at point-blank range and in the head. I studied the real case: the victim, defensively, fired at the attacker from a gas revolver, as it should be, from a meter distance. This did not have the proper stopping effect on the offender, he took away the weapon, hit the victim on the head with the handle, and then shot him point-blank in the face.
As a result, a person's nose was pierced with a jet of hot gas, sensorineural hearing loss developed, in other words, deafness, his eyes were burned, the burn turned into conjunctivitis, and so on.
Now they have introduced additional bans on injuries and pneumatics. There are reasonable and there are stupid ones. It was forbidden to shoot from pneumatics in places not designated for this, and there are simply no designated places. No, of course, it is correct that it is forbidden to shoot simply on the street, because we have enough fools. They shoot at cars from pneumatics, and at animals, even at people. But, taking into account the bitter experience, it is better to think that pneumatics cannot be sold to anyone anyhow! Let only adult residents of a given area buy, according to a passport, which is entered into a special computer database. This, on the one hand, disciplines the owner, and on the other hand, it allows you to outline the circle of persons subject to verification in the event of a crime.
But the biggest and most harmful nonsense, which shows that all discussions about tightening are aimed solely at squeezing money out of people, is the requirement that the owners of civilian weapons (primarily traumatics), once every five years, take an exam on knowledge of the rules of handling them. Question: What does this exam accomplish? Maybe Aslan Cherkesov, who killed a fan Sviridov with four shots in the head, did it because he did not study the law enough? Or a scumbag who knocked out the eye of actor Zibrov before the exam? And in general, has at least one murder, rape, robbery or banditry been committed because the criminals did not know that these actions are illegal and punishable ?!
The most harmless (for criminals), and therefore sold without any permits in Russia, means of self-defense. So far, there is no talk of banning them. And what will happen in the future, who knows … So: a stun gun (4), a gas canister (5), an aerosol device "Blow" (6)
So, what were the reasons for this decision? What research is it based on? Indeed, proceeding from the AZ of this logic, it is necessary every five years, or better, every year, to take a paid exam for all citizens of the country on the knowledge of the criminal code. And if they do not pass, they should be banned from walking down the street and fined … Isn't it a way to defeat crime? I give this idea to any parliamentary faction.
In general, in fact, there is no problem of the criminal use of trauma. There is the incompetence of some officials, who are exaggerating the colors and escalating the situation from scratch. One of the three mentioned deputies publicly stated that for one fact of the lawful use of traumatism, there are 99 criminal facts. This, of course, is complete nonsense, but the poor fellow also talked about police violations of the rules for carrying weapons, based … on the series. In fact, there are no statistics on the use of trauma at all. Sometimes 50 cases of its criminal use are cited. In relation to the total number of non-lethal barrels, this is less than 0.1%, that is, this is a value that is less than the statistical error, which does not at all give grounds to talk about something and draw any conclusions. For comparison: out of 15 thousand murders, about 10 thousand were committed using household tools: kitchen knives, hammers, axes, chisels, etc. Perhaps there is much more reason for alarm, is there not? Here is a topic for another law:. I also give it to any deputy who wants to imitate a deep state approach to ensuring public safety. You can issue permits for the right to buy knives and hammers for money, arrange re-examinations … Once in Okinawa it was allowed to have one knife per village. He was in the central square and an armed sentry was standing next to him. If one of the peasants, for example, had to slaughter a chicken, he would go to this square and there, under the supervision of a sentry, he would slaughter. You can, of course, go along this path, but it was invented by the invaders, out of fear of the local population. It is better to accept the principle that Americans have been practicing for many decades:. And it is necessary to influence people, not weapons. Now with us the situation is exactly the opposite.
The bully who molested Andrei Zibrov's wife made the young man, a good actor, disabled for life. Intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm from hooligan motives is punishable by imprisonment from three to ten years. Well, give the scoundrel 10 or eight years! This will be a lesson for others. And he was assigned three years in a general regime colony, which means that in a year and a half he will be released on parole! Where does this leniency towards a specific culprit come from? And where does such pressure on innocent people come from? After all, after such cases, the media with all their might attack civilian weapons, demanding a tougher sale, or even a complete ban! That is, in essence, the principle operates:. It is absolutely clear that such decisions untie the hands of criminals, but they tie law-abiding citizens hand and foot!
The most popular models of “limited-damage firearms” in Russia: the PB-4-1ML “Osa” barrelless pistol (7), the MR-80-13T (or IZH 79-9T) “Makarych” traumatic pistol (8), the “Jorge "(9) and" Jorge-ZM "(10), traumatic pistol" Thunderstorm "(11), traumatic revolver" Iceberg "(12)
In the United States, opponents of free gun ownership have a formally correct argument that a mass of stolen or simply lost legal barrels ends up on the black market. Usually, in this case, even a figure is called, however, no one can say for sure from which document it came from. In fact, this figure is, of course, several times lower. According to official data, over 10 years, from 1993 to 2002, inclusive, the US police received 1.7 million statements about the loss or theft of weapons. Moreover, this number from year to year decreased from 200 thousand in 1993 to 140 thousand in 2002. But this is not even the main thing here.We have our own way, our criminals get weapons from military warehouses much easier. Tens of thousands of not even pistols, as in the United States, are on the wanted list, but machine guns, machine guns, grenade launchers! And no one wants to tighten control over their storage: there is not even a centralized accounting of military weapons! For service and civilian weapons, it is, but not for military ones! But the work should be carried out precisely from this end: they found a gun on the bandit, looked at his number, punched him, in what warehouse he was, under what circumstances he disappeared, all this can be done in a few minutes. But this is just not what they do. And everyone understands why … Any society is structured in such a way that something can be stolen or lost in it, but this is not at all a reason to abandon this subject altogether. Cars are often stolen too … Let's ban them - there will be no thefts, no accidents, no collisions …
Another Russian feature, which opponents of the free sale of arms are especially strenuously emphasizing. Russia is a drinking country, and it is still drinking heavily. 18 liters of pure alcohol per capita, including children, women and the elderly. About a bottle of vodka for every Russian a week. About 80% of crimes in our country are committed in a state of alcoholic intoxication. Hence, opponents of legalization draw an interesting conclusion that instead of allowing weapons, it is necessary to better fight alcoholism. And as long as the number of drunkards and alcoholics in our country does not drop at least to the average world level, there can be no question of any weapon for the population. Formally, everything is correct here, but with one significant caveat, which immediately reduces all previous arguments to. Namely: just people who drink, drug addicts, members of organized crime groups, previously convicted and other marginal people acquire weapons without any particular problems. M. and A., with whom this article began, did not comply with the legal prohibitions, and in fact no one can restrict them. Therefore, speaking of arming the population, I mean law-abiding citizens, citizens with an impeccable legal reputation. But it is precisely these proposals that arouse fierce objections! At the same time, I have not come across a single recipe for the effective disarmament of marginals and criminals!
Incompetence reigns supreme in all matters related to weapons. I deliberately do not use in this article the newfangled term that they called traumatics - because it is incorrect in essence and illiterate in content. First, a traumatic weapon is not considered a firearm by forensic standards, since it is pre-muzzle energy. Secondly, firearms are used to defeat a live target, while traumatism pursues a different task: to disable the enemy. What changed the renaming? Now, or won't they get their eyes out? Unlikely. But when I wanted to buy cartridges for mine, the seller said that my license, which was updated a couple of months ago, was not good: it used the old wording, and now traumatics are called in a new way …
But actually, it's not about weapons! In Switzerland, submachine guns and machine guns are kept in homes, not to mention rifles. In Israel, young soldiers, boys and girls, walk around the city, including on leave, with a battle. And it's amazing: no one shoots anyone, no one kills anyone …
Yes, in fact, this is not surprising, if you remember that people are not killed by guns, but by other people. Only remaking bad people is much more difficult than depriving good people of the right to self-defense.