Читать книгу Economics and human rights - Андрей Соколов - Страница 5

When you walk down the street in the evening and see a noisy or even aggressive company, and maybe a flashing shadow, or maybe hurried steps behind… Do you feel safe?

Is there a knife, a can, a whistle in your purse or pocket? Is the mount or hatchet under the car seat? Did you attend training or self-defense courses? And maybe they were engaged in boxing or karate? Are you worried about your daughter or your wife when they go somewhere without you? Are you sure that you can repulse the criminal if he wants to rob you, kill, rape you?

How will you be able to protect your life and health, your property, if you come across a strong, and even more armed, criminal, bandit, hooligan? And your wife, daughter, mother?

Are their lives and health protected in your country?

Do you want your daughter to protect her life and health when she meets a robber, a murderer, a rapist?

How would she do it if she did not have a gun, and a meeting with the criminal took place?

Politicians say this – we have police… she will come, investigate, catch and punish the criminal…

They forget to add “maybe”, they forget to insert “if” before the word “catch”. Thus, “the police, perhaps, will catch the criminal if he can find him.”

But to you, already robbed, raped or killed, it will be almost all the same. You have already suffered. You were no longer protected. Your rights to health, life, inviolability of property are already broken. And the state did not protect you. For your taxes.

Why does the perpetrator choose to sacrifice you, and not a policeman or a military man?

It’s very simple – they have weapons, and you do not. You are weaker, defenseless, it is much easier for you to take away everything a criminal wants.

In principle, the ban on weapons for civilians is nothing but discrimination. There is a group of people “military” – they can. There is a group of people “civil” – they can not. This is segregation in the spirit of “a place only for whites.” However, for whom is the risk higher for home robbery or in a dark lane? For a strong man from the police or for a girl or an old woman? Which of them, out of work, is really more important to have weapons in the house or in the purse?

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

What should the state do to ensure you the right to life, health, the right to preserve your property?

Only to legalize the human right to self-defense, and hence the right to purchase and carry weapons.

A law-abiding citizen needs a law to ensure his right to life and health. The law that will allow you to acquire and carry weapons of self-defense, including a gun.

A criminal does not need such a law. He is a criminal and he already walks with a gun. And it is advantageous for him that a law-abiding citizen does not have a pistol. And while there is no law on the right to purchase and carry weapons in the country, the state defends the interests of the bandit, and not the right to life and health of a law-abiding taxpayer.

We must also remember that historically, weapons were forbidden to slaves and people who were slaves – Japanese and Chinese peasants.

Thus. The ban on carrying weapons equates citizens and residents to slaves.

And Article 4 of the Declaration of Human Rights prohibits slavery: “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery… are prohibited in all forms.”

Another aspect of the citizens’ right to arms is whether the state is afraid of its citizens.

The US is not afraid of its armed citizens – weapons are allowed and people even have the right to have an armed uprising authorized by law!

There is a beautiful story on this subject. Perhaps a true, perhaps anecdote, but it reflects well the essence of respect for the human right to life.

A story from a traffic policeman from Minnesota:

“One day, I stopped an elderly lady for speeding on track 210, at 197 miles, just east of McGregor, Minnesota.

I asked to present the rights, registration and insurance. The lady gave me the documents.

I was somewhat surprised (considering her considerable age), having found out among the documents a license for concealed carrying of weapons, and asked if she was armed at the moment.

The lady replied that yes, she had a 45-gauge pistol in the glove box.

Something made me ask, but does she have any weapons other than the one mentioned. She said that yes, she has 9mm Glock in the center console. Then I asked “Is this all?”. No, she said, there is still 38 caliber in her purse. Then I asked what she was so afraid of.

The lady stared at me and said: “I’m not afraid of shit.”

The right to arms is not only among US citizens. Below, you will see examples of how the legalization of weapons has affected the level of crime, and thus to ensure the right to life of people and save budget funds for the investigation of crimes. But these are significant amounts that could be spent with greater benefit to residents. For example, for round-the-clock coverage of roads, yards, streets. And criminals would have been harder, and an accident would have been less. For the same money. Thanks to a short line in the law: “Citizens have the right to freely acquire, store and carry firearms for the purpose of self-defense.”

By the way, defense spending would also have decreased, and tax revenues have grown, new businesses for the sale of weapons, safes for its storage, workshops, shooting galleries, training courses, etc. would have appeared. As for the defense… Who in the “sober mind” will try to fight with the country where every bush, every window can shoot? Thus, such a law is a deterrent force, like nuclear weapons. Only power is not costly, like an army or an atomic bomb, but a profitable, developing economy and replenishing the budget. This, perhaps, would have allowed even to reduce the cost of the army.

Taking into account all these arguments, the legislation of more than 20 countries of the world allows its citizens not only possession, but also wearing short-barreled weapons.

The right to bear and own weapons is an instrument for protecting life and health. The economic effect, the impact on the country’s budget, the impact on the criminal situation in the country arises from the fact that the number of crimes is reduced, that means the amount of budget expenditures for their investigation, search and capture of the criminal, court, prison, supervision, etc. is reduced. In this regard, an example of Estonia is illustrative, where the police budget after the legalization of arms was halved.

Just as vaccinations, if they are in many, protect from diseases those few who could not plant, as well as the presence of weapons in many, i.e. free arms sales protect those who do not have weapons. For the bandit does not know if a man is armed, since the right to arms is. And if he does not know, he will be careful to attack or rob.

Opponents of the presence of weapons from the public should remember that the police will come at the signal of robbery, rape, murder only when the crime has already been committed. And the man has already suffered. But the main task of the police, and the authorities in general, to prevent crime. The law on the free carrying of weapons is just such a preventive measure. A ban on weapons on the contrary prohibits citizens from protecting their lives and health.

Opponents of the legalization of weapons argue that they delegate the protection of their police rights. This argument does not stand up to criticism, not only because the police come after the crime, i.e. does not protect, but also because delegation does not mean a ban on independent actions. We delegate to doctors the right to take care of our health. But it does not forbid us to play sports or lead a healthy lifestyle. Delegating doctors the right to health protection does not lead to a ban on drug sales in pharmacies. Including without a prescription. But the delegation of the police right to protect life for some reason leads to a ban on legal weapons.

If weapons are prohibited that can save lives, then it is logical to prohibit condoms, bandages, plasters, harnesses, car first-aid kits and in general the provision of pre-medical care. They too can save a life. If you reach the limit of absurdity, then pharmacies should be banned – you can also poison yourself with, for example, salicylates, and excessive use of analgin or paracetamol leads to very deplorable consequences.

If the weapon is dangerous and can cause harm, and therefore it is forbidden, then the sale of knives, axes, chainsaws, cars and even bricks and ropes must also be banned. All this can turn into a weapon, harm life and health. All these things are dangerous.

However, only weapons are prohibited. Is it reasonable?

Here are a few examples. They are very modern and very similar in fact. But not by the result. In one case, a resident, a citizen was armed, the carrying of weapons was legalized. Two other results of the ban on the legal carrying of weapons, the ban on protection of life and health, the ban on the basic human right, was the defenselessness of citizens to the perpetrator and the huge number of victims.

If to speak from the point of view of economy – the country lost taxpayers who died in these incidents.

Jerusalem, Israel 01/08/2017

On this day in the center of Jerusalem, a truck, driven by a terrorist, entered a military group. Four died, another 15 people were injured. But the criminal was not stopped by a policeman, not a soldier, but by an ordinary civilian. But armed. Guide. Eitan Ron. This was reported by the Israeli Channel 9: “According to a 30-year-old guide, he was moving away from the military when a truck crashed into it. Ron was hurt and he flew to the side. “Fortunately, I had a gun, I fired a shot at the wheels, I realized that it was not enough, I ran and released all the clips on the cab.” The terrorist continued to go, when I shot the whole store, I realized that he was continuing to go to this the soldiers pulled up and opened fire, after 20 seconds he stopped, we called for help, there were wounded soldiers whom he moved twice.The shooting lasted less than a minute and the only question that should be asked is why the only 30-year-old civilian neutralizes the terrorist, while there were dozens of armed military men who fled “… The published video of the attack confirms the words of Ron – most of the military rushed to run in the opposite direction from the truck immediately after the attack, and did not try to eliminate the driver.” (Israel, Channel 9)

Nice, France, July 15, 2016

Here everything was different. The weapon was only with the police, and a truck with a terrorist on the night of July 15, 2016 crashed into the crowd on the embankment in Nice, where the celebration of the Day of the Bastille took place. 86 people were killed.

The criminal was shot by the police only after he crushed 86 people. All of them were without firearms.

Berlin, Germany, December 19, 2016

“In the evening, a truck crashed into a crowd of passers-by in the Bright Square in Berlin, where a Christmas fair was organized… Rescuers found several dead and about 50 wounded.” All of them were unarmed.

Total. If the state respects the human right to life and health, with the legalization of carrying weapons in Israel, the number of dead 4 people + a criminal. In case of non-observance of human rights, 86 people were killed in the ban on carrying weapons in France. In Germany – less, but only thanks to the truck’s computer and the heroism of the Polish driver, who died at the hands of the terrorist. Perhaps if the driver had the right to carry weapons, he would not have died. After all, the criminal had weapons. And the driver does not.

To date, the world has accumulated a lot of statistics and experience of permits and prohibitions on possession and carrying of weapons. Let’s look at this experience.

Australia

In 1996, the Australian Government banned the possession of many types of firearms, after which the number of armed robberies increased by 59% within eight years. (7)

Bulgaria

“The law permits the storage and carrying of firearms, including rifles. After permission to carry and store civilian rifled weapons, a significant decline in serious crimes was recorded.”(8)

Brazil

Since 25 years, a Brazilian can have a firearm for self-defense. The permission to acquire weapons is given by the Federal Police. (6)

However, wearing is allowed only to residents of rural areas of the country (about 20% of the population), if necessary. And crime is concentrated in cities where residents are unarmed in front of bandits. The result is high street crime.

United Kingdom

Since January 1997, the British government has banned citizens from possession of firearms. And this immediately led to an 88% increase in violent crimes (101% for armed robberies, 105% for rapes, 24% for murders). (7) In the United States, where the right to arms is protected by the constitution, the number of similar crimes in the same year was half that in Britain.

53% of English robberies occur when someone is at home. In America, the robbers admit that they are afraid of armed homeowners more than the police. As a result, the number of domestic robberies in the US in the presence of the owners is 13%. Almost 5 times less.

It would be correct to compare the number of robberies per 100,000 inhabitants, and not as a percentage, but as will be shown later, this does not matter much in this case. The tendency to reduce crime while increasing the legal arsenal of weapons for law-abiding citizens is steadily observed in all countries. As well as the growth of crime in the ban on weapons.

The United Nations report in 2002 placed England and Wales at the top of the crime tables among the 18 developed countries, recognizing the UK as less secure.

Five years after the ban on firearms, crime with its use has doubled. As expected, the ban on legal weapons led to the fact that it was owned only by criminals. (9)

Hungary

After the legislative permission for storage and carrying of fire-arms, a significant decline in serious crimes was recorded. (8)

Germany

Citizens of Germany own 10 million units of legal weapons. The increase in the number of legal “trunks” led to a reduction in crimes related to the use of weapons by 60%. (10)

Israel

In Israel, any citizen who has reached the age of 27 or has served in the army can buy and own weapons. Firearms can be carried by drivers of public transport and taxis, jewelers, former employees of power structures and other people who need it for personal protection. At the same time, citizens can keep no more than 50 bullets at home.

According to “Rosbalt” in Israel on the streets you can see a huge number of armed people, both in uniform and in civilian clothes. “The laws of Israel allow citizens to have, wear and use short-barreled weapons for self-defense, but in addition to fans of” short-barreled “in the streets one can see young men and girls with automatic army weapons. At the same time the machines are equipped with refilled magazines and are ready for use at any time. The right to carry a pistol or revolver has: taxi drivers, diamond exchange workers, sportsmen involved in shooting, and all residents of the country who live in the occupied territories. In addition, every citizen, after serving an emergency, may ask the command to sign a special petition, which gives grounds for obtaining a license. And, finally, the police issues a license to the weapons to all the volunteers who voluntarily patrol residential areas. In addition, the police and private security guards are armed in the country, and very young girls armed with army pistols often appear among the guards.”

“However, the high density of armament of the population does not lead to an increase in the number of accidents, or to a high level of illegal use of these weapons, than usually scare the philistine… officials.”

On the contrary, the recent history of Israel is filled with examples where the presence of weapons from law-abiding citizens helped them and others save their lives and health.

There is a case when, in the attack of a Bedouin gang on the family of an Israeli farmer, the farmer shot all the attackers. Savior and his life, and relatives. And then the police came… to the corpses of bandits, and not to the corpses of law-abiding taxpayers.

Often, criminals in Israel are “stopped” by random passers-by. A terrorist can shoot a soldier who is on vacation or is completely civilian, passing a criminal in a car.

This directly saves budgetary funds.

As an example, you can look at Russia, where weapons are prohibited, the number of policemen per capita is 976 employees per 100 000 population. In fact every hundredth resident is a policeman! This is how much money is needed from the budget for their “feeding”? And these are healthy men who do not produce anything. Neither build, nor sow, nor plow. Zero economic efficiency! More precisely – negative, because the level of crime exists somehow apart from them. (5)

In Israel there are 330 police officers per 100,000 population, i.е. three times less. The number of criminal deaths in Russia is 28.2 per 100 000 people.

In Israel, this ratio is 2.1 per 100 000 people. In a continually warring country! With constant terrorist attacks!

Those. In Israel, the probability of dying at the hands of a criminal is 14 times lower than in Russia.

The result of a reasonable law on weapons and a small number of police was the high salary of an Israeli policeman.

Ireland

In 1974, Ireland banned and confiscated a large number of small arms from the population, resulting in a five-fold increase in the number of murders. (7)

Italy

The weapon for the population is legalized. Justice Minister Roberto Castelli said that from now on, “criminals will have more to fear, and the victims of aggression will have fewer problems,” and in 2006 the Italian parliament approved a law that allows citizens to use legally registered weapons to protect their lives and property. (eleven)

Yemen

In Yemen, citizens from 18 years of age are allowed to own any kind of weapons. The license is only needed for carrying weapons, if there are sufficient grounds (work, position in society, etc.).

Canada

In Canada, weapons were previously sold freely. And after imposing severe restrictions and even seizing weapons from citizens, crime immediately increased by 45%. (12)

Latvia

The law permits the storage and carrying of firearms, including rifled weapons. The result of this law is a significant reduction in the number of serious crimes. (8)

Lithuania

The law permits the storage and carrying of firearms, including rifled weapons. After allowing the carrying and storage of civilian rifles, a significant decline in serious crimes was recorded. (8)

Mexico

Art. 10 of the Mexican Constitution gives the right to citizens of the country to have weapons for their own defense and to protect their property. In 2004, in addition to the Constitution, a law was passed that allowed Mexicans to keep at home no more than two pistols in caliber to 3.8 mm, and also to carry these weapons outside the house, including in public places. (13)

Moldova

After the citizens in Moldova were allowed to have pistols and revolvers, the crime rate almost halved. (12)

As of 2003, Moldovan citizens have 6000 firearms on their hands. Every year more than 800 pistols and revolvers are purchased. With each purchase, of course, the tax is paid. (14)

Norway

Residents of Norway can acquire virtually any weapon. More than a third of the country’s inhabitants are armed. To purchase weapons you need to get a license and justify the need to purchase. After that, a biographical check and training at the qualification courses are conducted.

However, concealed or free carrying of weapons is prohibited. And as a result – Breivik’s crime. Citizens did not have weapons, but the criminal had.

Russia

In Russia, in the hands of people, there are more than five million hunting rifles. In percent this is very small. 3—4%. The percentage of criminal use of legal gunshot hunting weapons is a percentage share. (15)

At one of the briefings, the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of St. Petersburg informed that there are only 2 cases of illegal use of them per year for 16 thousand legal hunting trunks. (12) In total, in Russia, legal weapons are used in crimes against the individual about 5—10 times a year.

In tsarist Russia, weapons were sold freely. The Nagan or the Browning cost 16—20 rubles – half of the average worker’s salary.

In the USSR, weapons were banned, and the total ban on weapons left in Russia since the days of the Soviet government does not lead to a decrease, but to an increase in crime. The criminal world is actively arming.

According to official data of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. As of December 1, 2004, 178,344 pieces of firearms and military equipment were stolen by criminals (or somehow “lost”) by the country’s law enforcement agencies, including 66,679 pieces of rifled weapons, of which 23,451 assault rifles, 25,916 pistols, 1,927 machine guns, 2,661 grenade launchers and 71 portable missile launchers. Of course, these weapons are now for criminals, and not for law-abiding citizens. (16, 17)

The state, complicating the legal circulation of weapons, facilitates the actions of bandits. Only 13% of the victims are resisting the attackers and only half the time successfully. (8)

USA

Thanks to the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees every citizen the right to own and bear arms, US citizens are fully able to protect their lives and health. Approximately 43% of American households have firearms. This is about 90 million armed citizens. They say that “Abraham Lincoln gave people freedom, and Colonel Colt called their chances.”

Specific conditions are regulated at the regional level. For example, in California, you can buy no more than one barrel in 30 days. In 30 states, weapons can be worn openly, in 14 it requires prior authorization, and only in 6 states it is forbidden to openly carry firearms. The concealed carrying of weapons is permitted in all states except Illinois.

Of course, the media is constantly showing data about shooting in the US. One of the reasons for this is that most of these media are also American or broadcast news from the US. For the US press generally watches very closely, where more closely than the news from Colombia, for example. On the other hand, the USA objectively produces a large percentage of world news. Much larger than, for example, the countries of Africa or South America. However, if you count the number of weapons in the hands of people, the number of inhabitants and the percentage of criminal use of weapons, you will get a completely different picture.

Professor David Mastard published in the Journal of Law and Economics the results of a study according to which in states where citizens are allowed to carry weapons, the number of police murders is reduced by two percent every year. (7)

According to the University of Chicago, in states where concealed weapons are allowed, the total crime rate is less than in the “forbidding” states, by 22%, the level of murders – by 33%, robberies – by 37%, grievous bodily harms – by 14%. (15)

In those states of America where secretly carrying weapons are allowed, citizens kill twice as many criminals as policemen. Thus, it can be stated that if citizens did not have weapons, it was for them, and not for criminals, that this part of the criminal meetings would end with death or other losses.

In those states of America where citizens are allowed to covertly carry weapons, the overall level of violent crime is lower by 18% than in Illinois, where wearing is prohibited.

In Illinois, where weapons are prohibited, 289.7 murders per 100 000 population are committed. In states where concealed weapons are allowed, 183.1 killings per 100 000 population.

In the state of Florida after 1987, after permission to purchase weapons, crime fell by 21%.

In Washington, the capital of the United States, in 1976, the authorities banned the possession of pistols and revolvers. As a result, crime has tripled.

From 1973 to 1992, the number of “trunks” of US citizens increased by 73% – from 122 to 222 million units! The number of murders during the same years decreased by 10%.

The most stringent laws concerning the possession and carrying of weapons exist in the cities of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington. In these cities, only 5% of the US population live together. But it is in these cities, where it is more difficult for citizens to protect themselves, 15% of all murders in the country are committed. (12)

The Town Hall of the small town of Kennesaw, Georgia, in 1983, required residents to have at least one unit of firearms per house. For 16 years of application of this act in the city there were only three murders, two of which with the help of a knife (1984 and 1987). And then, despite the fact that the population of the town for fourteen years has grown 4 times!

The total number of crimes against the person in Kennesaw within a year after the adoption of the law was reduced by 74%, and a year later by another 45%. That is, only one realization that any person in the city can be armed, led to a significant reduction in crime.

The example of Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms among citizens increases the level of public order and security. And reduces, accordingly, the cost of security, reduces the burden on the budget and the police.

The second amendment to the US Constitution reads: “… the right of people to store and carry weapons should not be infringed.” This right is used by 7 out of 10 adult Americans.

In the hands of a criminal, weapons are evil. In the hands of the criminal and the scalpel is evil. In the hands of the doctor, the same scalpel is good. The ax in the hands of the forester is good. In the hands of the criminal is evil. The knife in the hands of the cook is good, in the hands of the bandit is evil.

The population of the USA more than twice exceeds the population of Russia. In the US, weapons are allowed. In Russia it is forbidden. At the same time, according to data for 1993, there were 23 thousand murders in the United States, in Russia – 29 thousand. Those. in terms of the percentage of the population, in a country where weapons are prohibited to citizens, they kill twice as much as in the country where the weapon is legalized. Even policemen in the United States, despite a huge number of weapons from residents, are killed half as often as in Russia.

In the US, according to data for 2016, with all the abundance of weapons in the hands of people, the number of murders was less than 5 per 100,000 a year. In Russia, despite the ban, this indicator is almost twice as high – more than 9 people per 100 000 population. (132)

Official statistics of developed countries constantly notes the increase in the level of murders, with the toughening of the right to carry and store weapons. (8)

Observations confirm the rule. From country to country, from example to example, the same picture repeats itself almost mathematically. There are more weapons among citizens – there are fewer crimes and murders.

Why, when speaking about the right of citizens to life and health, and the connection of this right with the economy, it is necessary to remember criminal statistics? Not only because this is the main argument of opponents of free possession of weapons, but also because the right to life and health of one person is limited by the right to life and health of another person. And, as can be seen from the examples given, the total number of saved lives and health with free possession of weapons is greater than with prohibitions on weapons. From figure to figure, from country to country, from state to state.

As for the economy, then it’s even simpler. The more weapons sold legally, the more taxes paid, the more jobs created, the more taxpayers saved their lives and health.

If the US sold 150 million weapons, and in Russia only 5 million, how much more taxes went to the treasury of the United States? And how much more shops, shooting galleries, repair shops, shooting clubs opened? How much more jobs did you have? How much more people were able to get a job and legally improve their financial situation?

It is also important to note the fact that the total number of crimes involving weapons constitutes a rather small percentage of all deaths caused not by illness or by age. Much smaller than the volume of battles over the ban on possession of weapons.

So in 2001 in the United States in an accident killed 42,900 people. But cars are not banned.

From poisoning killed 14,500 people, and from a fall from a height of 14,200, which did not lead to a ban on the construction of skyscrapers.

From accidents due to strangulation (choked with food, etc.), 4200 died, but this did not entail the general closure of restaurants and cafes.

From fire and other sources of fire and smoke, 3900 people died, but matches and lighters can still be bought in any supermarket.

From the firearms for the same period of time, 800 people died. This is only 1% (one percent!) Of deaths from the above set of causes. (18)

As Stephen Levitt writes – Given the number of pistols in the hands of the US population and the annual number of murders, the probability of using a single pistol to commit a murder is one to ten thousand. The risk of losing your life by drowning in the pool is higher than the risk of dying from a bullet. (136)

If we summarize the data of the FBI, police and scientists, it turns out that increasing the number of weapons in the hands of the population leads to a reduction in the number of its use. Not even murders or injuries. Just “shoot less.”

At the same time, the number of murders also decreases. On average, by 8% per year, rape by 5%, robbery by 7%.

Owners of firearms are much less likely to be victims of robbers. In this case, the use of firearms as a means of self-defense rarely ends in blood. Only in 1% of cases the offender is wounded and in the tenth of a percent of cases – he is killed. That is enough of a threat and a shot in the air to prevent a crime in 99% of cases before the appearance of the police.

It was also noted that if the law allows only to keep weapons at home, then street crime sharply increases, especially with regard to pensioners and young women. But as soon as the law allows not only the storage, but also the carrying of weapons – street crime is sharply reduced. (18)

So the laws of Oklahoma, which allowed homeowners to use force no matter how small the threat, reduced the number of robberies by almost half. (9) It is important to note that the number of robberies fell not from the increase in pistols in homes, but only from permission to shoot at the slightest threat to property or health. It is entirely permissible to assume that politeness in Oklahoma has also increased, and the number of abuse and threats has decreased.

In 2007, 5% of the world’s population lived in the United States. And these people owned half of all weapons on Earth. (3, 19) At the same time, two-thirds of the firearms in the US are in the hands of civilians. The police and the army are in a clear minority – one third.

If you follow the logic of the opponents of weapons for citizens, then such a “powder” barrel should have exploded long ago. But this does not happen. And as shown above, only according to official statistics, the US is safer for the inhabitants of the country than, for example, Russia in two to four times. Accent. If you compare the official statistics.

When it comes to the right to life of an individual, the right to own weapons for self-defense is obviously immutable. And the big figures prove that this is not only logical, but also safe and economically justified.

In the United States, approximately 100,000 firearms are registered each year for self-defense. Those. 100,000 times the right to arms helped to prevent crime. 100 thousand crimes against the life, health and property of taxpayers were prevented before the arrival of the police. This, of course, led to budget savings, as the police did not have to investigate 100,000 murders, robberies and rapes. This led to the receipt of taxes on the sale and maintenance of 100 thousand weapons and ammunition to them. This led to a decrease in the total number of crimes in the last decade of the last century by 30—40%.

Thus, the right to life and health of taxpayers is now more secure than, for example, in the 80th year. (3, 20)

According to the FBI, the death of the criminal ended in 2005—2010, only 213 crimes per year. Those. To scare off a gun is not at all what to wound or kill. Scared off 100 thousand times. Only 213 were killed. (21)

Czech Republic

The Czech Republic, along with Switzerland and Estonia, is one of the most armed countries in Europe, if counted by the number of “trunks” in the population. In the Czech Republic you can not only buy weapons, without explaining the reason for the purchase, but also covertly to wear. Not by chance, therefore, the Czech Republic is one of the safest European countries.

In addition to reducing the level of crime, the right to arms in the Czech Republic led to the development of an entire industry. And today, shooting is almost as popular as football or hockey. This is not so widely known fact, but more important is another. Hardly an unbiased reader, it is unlikely that a critic of the right to bear arms will be able to recall at least one instance of the use of weapons in this country, which led to the tragedy. After all, tragedies, such as shootings in US schools or Breivik’s crime, are led by opponents of weapons as the main argument for the ban.

The logic of this argument is “limp on both legs”. It is rare when people and the media discuss fatalities, but always very loudly – air crashes. At the same time on roads, in road accidents many more people die than in plane crashes.

In 2014, the Czech Republic committed 426 crimes involving the use of firearms, including gas and signal pistols. During the same period in the Czech Republic there were 2,105 car accidents with human injuries.

According to the Minister of the Interior of the Czech Republic, Milan Hovanets, weapons in the hands of citizens will help in the fight against terrorism. He believes that Czech citizens should have the right, with weapons in their hands, to protect “life, health and property”. In his opinion, “active and rapid defense” could reduce the chances of attackers, firearms in the hands of citizens would help “ensure the internal order, security and territorial integrity” of the Czech Republic. (22)

Switzerland

Switzerland is one of the quietest and safest countries in Europe… and the most armed.

Upon dismissal from the army, the Swiss take their weapons (M-57 rifle and 24 sets of cartridges or SIG SG-550 rifle and 50 rounds) to their homes. True, pensioners are required to hand over the M-57, instead of which they receive a pump gun.

The possession of weapons is not only permitted, but also encouraged. With a population of only 6 million people, in private possession there are 2 million (according to other sources up to 3 million) “trunks”. Of these, 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

The government sponsors training in the handling of weapons, holding rifle competitions, and promoting the possession of weapons among women. Army units arrange sales of surplus weapons, which are bought by civilians. The proceeds raise the budget, and the right to freely carry weapons makes the country safe. (23)

Sweden

Sweden, like Switzerland, refers to countries with a high percentage of the population owning firearms. Swedes are allowed to have up to 6 hunting rifles, or up to 10 pistols, or up to 8 units of mixed weapons (rifles + pistols). However, free wearing is prohibited.

Estonia

Since 2001, in Estonia, citizens from the age of 21 can purchase, store and carry firearms (hidden and discharged). Owners of more than eight units are required to equip a special depot with alarm. Collectors can own army weapons. (24) On hands of one and a half million inhabitants of this country there are 120 thousand trunks.

After the legalization of the pistols, street crime decreased by 80%, which allowed halving the police force. (10) The number of murders after the legalization of weapons decreased by five times! (25)

Jamaica

After the total ban on the possession of any small arms in Jamaica in 1974, the number of murders increased from 11.5 per 100,000 in 1973 to 41.7 in 1980. (7)

Perhaps the authorities of Jamaica operated with typical arguments of opponents of weapons: “The weapons will not help you!”; “You will not have time to apply it!”; “You can not shoot a man!”

These arguments are unconvincing and do not have any evidence. It’s not for an official and a deputy to decide what a person will help, but what does not. What he will have time to do and what not. What can he do in a critical situation. Full-time citizens can quite solve these problems without the intervention of lawmakers.

As it was shown above, crime is reduced only due to the theoretical possibility that a potential victim (law-abiding taxpayer) can have a weapon. Thus, health, property and the right to human life are protected not so much by the “trunk”, but by the legal right to have it and to wear it.

“In the overwhelming majority of cases, the criminal, this is not Duncan MacLeod, does not know how to resurrect and does not like to die. His task is to quickly and safely squeeze out money and dump before the police arrive. And it is citizens who can spoil their plans, especially if citizens are armed and protected by law. " (27)

Let’s look at weapons as a commodity. Potentially dangerous, but protecting life, useful, developing the economy of goods, from the sale of which the tax is paid, i.e. the budget is replenished.

Buying a weapon for self-defense is no more dangerous than buying pyrotechnics, cars, motorcycles, pneumatic hammers, chainsaws, knives or axes.

The state is obliged to help citizens to protect their lives and property, that’s why the police exist. But the police will not have time to arrive at the time of rape, murder, robbery. So, the state can not provide citizens with protection of their life and health. Therefore, it is obliged to allow them to do this on their own; to acquire weapons for self-defense.

Everything is extremely simple. On one side of the scale is the observance of human rights to life, to health, to work, to rest, as well as budget revenues, which means pensions, allowances, roads, kindergartens and schools. And on the other side of the scale is a violation of human rights, a budget deficit, low pensions, bad roads, queues in kindergartens, underfunding of medicine and science, crowded school classes, street crime and serious crimes. So what makes sense to vote?

The criminal will remain a criminal, regardless of what he was armed with a crime – a knife or a pistol.

A law-abiding citizen will not cease to be a law-abiding citizen if he has a gun under his jacket.

If this is not the case, how is the policeman different from the bandit? After all, they are both armed.

Quite often, before, drivers kept a mount – a heavy metal club – under the seat. Almost all drivers, almost every car.

How often did they use it?

Do policemen often shoot?

Do gunmen often shoot?

Why then would law-abiding citizens suddenly open fire?

The presence of goods on store shelves and vegetables on other people’s gardens does not make people thieves.

The presence of beautiful women and men does not always lead to adultery.

The weakness of children is not a provocation of violence.

The sale of knives does not lead to an increase in murders and does not force a person to kill.

There is a notion of presumption of innocence, so it is necessary to separate “flies from cutlets”.

Theft is a crime, a deviation from the norm. The presence of this fact does not lead to the closure of shops and the enclosing of fields and gardens with barbed wire.

Murder is a crime, but not an excuse for prohibiting the sale of knives, axes, hunting rifles, etc.

Adultery is a personal sin within the same family and is her private affair. It is not good for the state to interfere with the citizens’ bedcourts, if these matters do not threaten the life and health of other people.

Cruelty to the weak – children, women – is a crime. But not an excuse for banning family or procreation.

Let’s focus not on the units of geeks and criminals, but on millions of law-abiding taxpayers.

The legalization of weapons for self-defense, the legalization of the carrying of weapons is not a matter of morality or morality, it is not a matter of the policy of “whatever happens”, but the simple and unconditional observance of the human right to life and health.

From the economic point of view, the legalization of weapons is the preservation of the life and health of taxpayers, the reduction of budget expenditures, new jobs in the legal arms industry – shops, sellers, repairs, maintenance… and this again taxes, taxes, incomes and budget revenues. This decrease in the level of street crime, a reduction in the number of robberies and crimes against the individual.

And it is profitable. It is advantageous for the state to respect human rights.

The right to bear and own weapons is an instrument for protecting life and health – this is part of the human right to life and health. The economic effect, the impact on the country’s budget, the impact on the criminal situation in the country from the legalization of carrying weapons is very significant. Crime and budget expenditures are declining, and budget revenues are increasing.

Everyone has the right to life. It follows from this that he has the right to defend his life. Than? This is regulated by law. A knife and a baseball bat, an ax… or a gun.

It is important to remember that the threat of life from bandits comes against the requirements of the law.

Hence, the right to own and bear arms is an unconditional human right, for this is his right to life.

The legalization of the arms market leads to the confidence of citizens in immediate protection, without waiting for the arrival of police. Simultaneously with the replenishment of the budget, the legal sale of weapons reduces the number of illegal, non-taxable sales.

Think about it. How much does an hour of police work for a country? How many hours does a policeman spend to work on illegal weapons? How many hours will the policeman (police) spend on the investigation of the crime? Multiply by the number of crimes against the person and property. And you will learn how much the budget will save from a simple line in the law “free acquisition, storage and carrying of firearms are allowed”.

However, it can be even easier. If the government is afraid of its citizens, if it manages so that there is a risk of insurrection, then arms prohibit power. If the government manages well, if it does not fear its citizens, then the weapon will be legalized. The rest is wickedness.

If the reader has doubts about the reliability of the data, objectivity and usefulness of the author’s arguments, if the reader continues to be tormented by doubts and habitual notions about what is acceptable, if the reader thinks that legalization is threatening problems, then let’s change the angle slightly.

According to the UN declaration, and according to the reasonable thinking of any person about his personal life, human rights are primary relative to all other rights and interests. And if the author managed to convince the reader that the right to arms is the realization of the human right to life and health, then the state is obliged to realize this right by legalizing the possession and carrying of weapons.

Does it threaten anything? Maybe. Although the facts say the opposite. Nevertheless, if we talk in terms of threats, then we must immediately abandon the sale of knives and axes in stores, prohibit the use of cars, trains, planes and much more. For their use is also associated with threats and consequences.

That is why the author insists that it is necessary to discuss not so much the harm or benefit of legalization, but how the violation violates human rights. If it violates – legalization is necessary.

It is from these positions that all other issues and prohibitions set forth in this book will be considered.

In the modern world, human rights are primary. Every single person, not an abstract society or state. The rest is cunning.