For the hundredth time about the blunderbuss

Once again after reading another article (with lots of comments) about allowing/prohibiting the blunderbuss, i decided to write myself. Boiling! a little about yourself (that was not screaming about the ignorance of the topic, etc. ). From my military experience 3 years (1993-95) i served in special units of the mia of Russia for the protection of places of special works, important hasobject and maintenance of special and military cargoes. In this period there are a lot of events in the country, which i for 2 years had to wear regular pm hours.

It looked like this: gave the gun in accordance with the order and protect it as you want (safe, of course, was not given). Before going on guard check for weapons/ammo. All this was done in order for the alarm l/s was coming in part to munitions, and immediately into combat positions. Realities have shown that at that time it was apparently the best option.

Shooting was 2 times a week, patrons were given a lot. Then i served in a different kind of troops, firing/bullets had a lot (impact location on the same property as the warehouse rav), but more experience of keeping guns at home, thank god, was not. This experience allows me to draw some conclusions about the short barrel and the problems caused by them. I'll go point by point. 1. The views of citizens spread across three categories: a) life threatening; b) the threat to property; c) "I pistikos". With the first two categories is easier and more logical (it is possible to discuss, at least), but the third.

The third category confidently thinks that the barrel can swing left/right, not to be tolerated, to answer: "Yes, he is my wife's disgrace in every way!" they just somehow forget about the reverse situation: that the opposing party can also be a weapon, and that will have to answer by law for the offense. 2. Immediately i also want to share the danger of life and property — not on the value and transience. The threat to life occurs instantly; the threat to property will be stretched over time. Reaction to counter the threat to property is enough for even beginner shooters; when life is threatened may not be enough time even in regularly exercising a professional shooter (there were, alas). 3.

The law on self-defence. People who think that you can kill over a stolen bucket of potatoes from the garden (literally!) and leading example of the United States (where you can shoot anyone who invades your house), forget that then in the United States is the court. And if a jury decides that threat was insufficient and the weapon applied is disproportionate to the attack, the sentence for this can be from 15 years and up to the tower. Exactly the same thing will happen on our life force, they're not from the bulldozer came. 4.

"No one in Russia voluntarily legalize normal korotkova, because the armed citizen can and ask questions, and the security forces will suddenly become absolutely useless. " the U.S. Experience clearly shows that to ask questions armed citizen certainly can, but not for long. Kill the police. Including, and for this reason none of the cases of mass murder in the United States were not prevented by citizens with their verhoormethode.

Cops in the us, where 250. 000. 000 trunks, for some reason forgot. And machines why stop there only rear back to shoot extremely uncomfortable, and hand on the dashboard make a put, and try not to give in. It's not our cops bicker. Offhand: "U.S.

Police shot and killed 256 people in the first three months of 2016. " interested and spent half an hour on search: november 16 in the us police officers was shot and killed 1,000 th 2015 citizen". Three people a day minimum just from the hands of the police. "They said, "The vast majority of people killed by the police, belongs to one of three categories: they had weapons, they had suffered from mental illness or they ran away when the police told them to stop. " according to official data, 564 people from 965 shot guards were carrying pistols or rifles, and 281 — knives, toy guns that could be mistaken for the real thing, or "Other dangerous items". At the same time in 75% of cases, the police or other people they came to help, were attacked by troublemakers". The same thing will happen: the security forces will be forced to shoot any armed person at the slightest disobedience to them. 5. First, the supporters of the blunderbuss lead a lot of attacks on women/the elderly/disabled, then abruptly cut off the data category of citizens proposals to systematically attend small classes at least once a month.

Yes, it is reasonable and necessary, but for the average of our citizens impossible. Given the hardware requirements of galleries opening additional galleries in connection with high costs and low incomes of the population looms on the horizon. In our area, for example, 4 tyre, but they are all located in the regional centre (from 200 to 300 km). Is it possible to travel named groups regularly there? no.

This also includes problems with gun culture, which is not, including because of problems with the galleries. 6. Give examples of small/tiny countries like switzerland/Israel/moldova/other can not directly be applied to our reality, precisely because of the small size. There is enough law enforcement agencies, and citizens, armed with pistols, and that's why they do not apply. When i go to our regional center, i pass three of Israel.

About the urals/siberia/far east in general am silent: there is in the village area larger than the state. Therefore, we can only rely on the experience of the United States, and there are problems with gun ownership — a lot. 7. Why, for home protection you need just a blunderbuss, his supporters, too, can not clearly explain. However, they all agree that to hit/to strike with buckshot attacker much easier from arms 12-gauge than a pistol.

In principle, after some refinement of legislation ideal for the self-defense of home ownership — this is 12-gauge. 8. Possession of weapons — generally a song. Supporters of the blunderbuss together forget about the sharp increase in risk in owning a gun. This includes the risk of theft of weapons from houses/cars, and "Body" of the owner.

The gun has always been a desirable prey of the criminal world. Unlike the iphone, it is always the price. I have to be honest, this is most annoying: you can't just drink in the company, it is impossible to reduce the distance to people less than 2 metres, you can't just walk into the dimly lit entrance (although you know him as flaky, but dumb), you can't lose the keys to the apartment, we can't leave him at home for fun (children has not been canceled). And then the reverse situation: if you don't carry with you constantly then at the right moment it will not be on hand. 9.

Unstable/thugs. Guarantees that weapons will not fall to them, no. And here is the proposal to abolish the limits of self-defense could play into their hands. Killed reason, called the police and: "He attacked me — i was self".

Options abyss. Alas, the ways to eliminate the legal ownership of such weapons not people. 10. The price of weapons. Count on the sudden influx of imported weapons is nonsense.

Transportation, customs duties, vat, certification, cheating trade will make it too expensive and not mass. So is the case with hunting now: italian afv is in stores and on the hands, but they are ten times less than iga. Our weapon? yes, there are some examples of civil weapons, but how much it would cost with massive demand do not presume to predict. But that will be cheap — it is unlikely. 11.

Favorite supporters of the blunderbuss: "On the road car/kitchen knives/broken bottles/etc. Killed far more people than legal guns!" briefly: a) all named originally intended for absolutely other purposes, and only a serious violation of safety rules and use leads to death (drunkenness in a strange apartment with a strange company and getting a bottle on the head is also the violation of safety rules). The gun was initially designed only for one murder, is his sole purpose. B) are not comparable numbers. If you interpolate the number of cars (leaving the number of deaths on the roads) to the number of registered guns may come out that the car is much less harmful weapons.

"The number of human losses for the period from 1968 to 2011 exceeds the cumulative losses in all the wars ever fought by america. According to the politifact project, in this period there were 1. 4 million deaths due to firearms, whereas in all armed conflicts, from the revolutionary war to the latest Iraq war that killed 1. 2 million people. Since the beginning of 2015 years, the United States was 294 shooting in a crowded place, described as "Incidents", which killed or wounded four people and more. According to the U.S.

Department of justice and the council on foreign relations, for the period from 2001 to 2011 on average in the U.S. As the result of the use of firearms killed annually 11 385 people" (02. 10. 2015, "Air force"). "Washington, december 21, 2015 / offset. Tass Dmitry kirsanov. The number of people dying every year in the USA as a result of the use of firearms, for the first time equaled the number of victims of road traffic accidents (rta).

The news circulated by the american centers for control and prevention (cdc)" (about 34,000 cases). This is achieved. There is no limit on weapons: "According to cdc experts, they uncovered the situation is due primarily to a sharp reduction in the number of people killed in the us on the roads. This was achieved by making a variety of security measures designed to significantly reduce the number of possible accident". Ps the people in the comments were outraged, they say, it is unclear what position the author is! let me explain: i.