The topic of civil law on self-defense with weapons is extremely relevant in the entire post-Soviet space. Especially in the sense that in fact we do not have this right. More precisely, you can defend as much as you want – you will most likely just then sit down for premeditated murder or infliction of serious bodily, if, of course, there are no good friends or relatives in the organs or power structures.
I would not like to touch on this question, but it’s so preposited that if there are such acquaintances, then – it’s already the case – the victim (the person who used the weapon for self-defense) or, if necessary, even the attacker (who initially attacked, that is, the attacker, not a self-defender, who then in a criminal case suddenly became an “assailant”) otmazhut, depending on who would have an “important” relative. And so that the “average temperature in the hospital” would be stable – all the rest will be squeezed even more.
And it would be okay to honestly say this, but not so – they come up with all sorts of silly excuses and reasons, as if only to limit the right to self-defense with a weapon, and for the same possession and free carrying of short-barreled firearms. The main arguments are “This will cause a surge of violence!” And “Everyone will shoot each other!”
Do we need the right to self-defense with a weapon?
You see, one thing, when the trunk is yours and you are the “king”. And it is quite another when literally every old woman in her purse can find a weighty argument of a large caliber. Of course, at first, the most “reckless” will spoil the statistics a bit, but they will rather quickly end naturally. And the police, instead of a well-fed and sluggish “investigation of already committed offenses,” will have to learn to prevent crime and engage in gunfights. Yes, in short, what to tell – take the official statistics.
Pistol, shotgun or carbine?
And here the question naturally arises – what kind of firearms should be in the hands of the population? Someone will immediately declare that a pistol will be quite enough to ward off even an armed robber. Yes, and roomy shops will be superfluous for self-defense. After all, what is the main task – to fight back, and then dump in a safe place. But what if there are many attackers, and there are no safe places around?
Consider the simplest example – a 1992 Los Angeles riot. In short, African-Americans went to smash the homes of ordinary citizens in protest because of the acquittal of the cops who beat their black fellow for resisting arrest. Great logic, yes – “We are protesting against arbitrariness, therefore we will arrange arbitrariness!”. However, African Americans rarely differed consistency and consistency in behavior.
So, 53 corpses, more than two thousand wounded, damage to the billions. And this ass lasted almost a week. And that all this time was to make normal law-abiding citizens? Warning shots in the air to cool the heat of the very very zealous rebellious. Some were forced to hold defenses in their homes and shops. And would anyone save a standard pistol here?
“Everything was very serious and tough, at any moment they could pounce on a bench, a shop or one of our houses … and everything …” recall the residents of the Korean quarter, who were also actively smashed by “thirsty for justice from the south”. By the way, the oppressed colored minority of Koreans disliked the fact that some Korean woman dared to shoot an African-American woman who was trying to rob her store! The horror is simple – they do not allow national fishing to be engaged. In short, the Koreans had to shoot back and it is not known whether they would succeed in holding the crowd if it were not for a semi-automatic weapon. Tellingly, the Koreans did not conduct aimed fire at the marauders, although they could. But they preferred to keep the aggressor at a distance so as not to aggravate.
In a situation where the police sit in the precincts, the army has not arrived yet, and the devil knows what is happening in the city, people had to fully use their right to self-defense, and defend their lives and property with arms.
In addition, we recall the text of the Second Amendment, beloved by all American-conscious Americans:
“But when a long series of abuses and violence, consistently subordinated to the same goal, testifies to the insidious plan to force people to accept unlimited despotism, the overthrow of such a government and the creation of new guarantees of security for the future becomes the right and duty of the people.”
So from Second Amendment to the US Constitution It follows directly that the forcible overthrow of a despotic power is the RIGHT and DUTY of the people. In our realities, these words may sound a little wild, and may even be held accountable, so let’s say more succinctly – “The rescue of a drowning man is the work of the drowning man himself!”, That is, everyone is responsible for his own freedom, security and life. And believe me – without a good gunshot, hell you will do it – the normal power will fire back.
But this is so, by the way. For countries of the former Soviet Union, the second amendment is too radical a thing. I sincerely hope that only for now.