Babaev VS Weller

How to protect yourself from crime if the state does not protect? Is it worth it in this situation to remove the ban on wearing weapons? Can we help ourselves? The chief researcher at the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Mikhail Babaev and writer Mikhail Veller argued about this in the editorial office of The New Times

Street crime has intensified, even Nurgaliev seems to have recognized it ...

Mikhail Babaev: I specially took the numbers with me. The total crime for 2008 decreased by 10.4%. The number of murders decreased by an unprecedented value - up to 19 thousand “with a penny” against 30 thousand 5-6 years ago. This is the official statistics of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. But at the same time, there are more and more unidentified corpses, more and more.

Mikhail Weller: This means that criminals work better and better ...

Big lie and statistics

Babaev: Maybe even criminals work better, but the fact that the police work worse is one hundred percent. Which of them wins the competition, I do not know. But not a single figure that is officially published by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, I am an employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, retired police colonel - I do not believe. This is an unscrupulous lie. There can be no such “scissors”.

Explain - why?

Babaev: so that in such a huge country as ours, where, even according to official figures, more than 3 million crimes are committed (and according to experts-4 times more), crime decreased by 10%, it is necessary ... the descent of Christ or something similar, in short, a completely different model of behavior. 20 thousand murders and attempts in 2008 were registered in 2008. And at the end of 2008, unidentified corpses were almost 77 thousand. So consider: did the number of crimes decreased or, conversely, increased? ..

If our law enforcement agencies are not able to protect citizens, then maybe they should give people the opportunity to arm themselves?

Babaev: In no case.

Weller: We have banditry by the mid-90s formed as a social phenomenon, the bandits rendered power services to society by accusing the state, which voluntarily left this sphere. In the early 2000s, normal guys from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the KGB decided that there was absolutely no need to give this to the excursions of the Sheluponi such as “Tambov” and “Solntsevsky”. And they replaced them, began to provide power services themselves. In this situation, the state protects 3%, there is no case against the rest of the population. They need the population in order to work in production in order to get in production so that they can take taxes from them, squeeze them through the housing and communal services system and that they do not give resistance. A free man always differed from a slave in that he had weapons and defended his house, his city and his state. It was his privilege, his right, his duty. The slave had no right to resistance.

Babaev: In general, the scheme that Mikhail Iosifovich outlined is correct. The conclusion only does not suit me at all. If freedom from non -freedom differs only by a gun in the hand, I want to ask the question: what the hell is I in this freedom?

Weller: The difference between freedom and non -freedom not only in stock or lack

a weapon of weapons. This is only one of the important and fundamental moments.

Babaev: But from my point of view, a gun in the hand has nothing to do with freedom. Otherwise, the most dangerous criminals would be the most free in the social sense. In fact, this is not so. And the question of free possession of weapons is no coincidence raised now and found many supporters: indeed the function of protection by the state is terribly weakened. But I am very afraid that when we give out weapons, the authorities will breathe with great satisfaction and go about their affairs: Khodorkovsky, oil, gas, pipes - and we will give us freedom to protect ourselves.

Maybe for us it is better than the current situation?

Babaev: Our mentality is such that any, good or bad, we willingly bring to a logical end, turning into absurdity. Weapons in the hands of the population are very dangerous ...

Weller: But then you need to subscribe to the prescriptions of Peter the Great and to put the Dutch, Swedes and Germans in the bosses over themselves. Or even invite Rurik. Because in other words you said that we, Russians, are not capable of effective civilized self -government - we have such mentality.

Babaev: I only said that we can even bring a reasonable idea, not to mention the dangerous, to a logical end. Your supporters are already saying: you need to arm absolutely the entire population.

Buy a gun

In a situation where the number of unidentified corpses is growing, should people be able to defend themselves?

Babaev: Of course.

So, everyone should be able to come to the store and buy a gun?

Babaev: It is not necessary. There are many different tested protection systems. I understand that compared to a bullet in the forehead - it does not look so radical ... Nevertheless, there is a system of protection of premises, technical protection of property - warehouse, stores, and so on. There is a traumatic weapon - protection weapons. But what seems extremely characteristic to me - the weapon of defense today very often turns into an attack of attack.

In 1982, a law was adopted in the state of Georgia in the United States, which demanded from the owners of the houses to Weapons fidgeted at home. The number of robberies on houses fell from 65 to 26, and after another year - up to 11. This data is given by the assistant prosecutor Manhattan. Over 30 years, weapons in the United States increased by 250%, while the number of murders fell by 35.7%. Is it talking about something?

Babaev: In the United States, indeed crime has been declining for the past 10 years. Including the total number of murders. But I would not draw such direct conclusions. It has been established a long time ago, as a criminologist, I say that in the criminal sphere of comparison of data for different countries should be very careful. There is another culture.

There is a million immigrants every year ...

Babaev: But they join the system. And most importantly, a big mistake to believe that the number of crimes has decreased only due to the armed for people. Clinton in the first year of his presidency made a brilliant speech, in which, in particular, he said: “The government allocates $ 32.2 billion to solve the problems of combating crime. We announce that the interests of the security of the people are above the interests of our party. And we declare zero tolerance - I quote close to the text - to all kinds of even small offenses. " And these $ 32 billion went to ensure security measures: technical, technological, personnel. They began to build new prisons, although they were not there a “forge of personnel” as ours. And it was said: the number of states in which weapons will spread widespread. When the issue is resolved this way, then there is a result.

And we will take off! ..

Do not you think, dear writer, that armed self -defense is the return of society to a natural state, before the law appeared and everyone was at war with everyone. The only thing that restrained, as Hobbes wrote in his famous Leviathan, is the instinct of self -preservation: I will kill and they will kill me. Such a prospect does not scare you?

Weller: We should not talk about the spread of weapons, but about the abolition of the ban. These are different things. Until November 17, Russia had the same very preferential laws on the possession and wearing of weapons, as in any normal civilized country. And Russia has not at all leaded in the world in crime and murders. The weapons were forbidden by the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution in order to suppress any resistance. There are two fundamentally different political ways to restore order in society and ensure the safety of citizens. The first way is Stalin. In the 45th year, after the introduction of a special law to combat banditry, they were often shot, often on the spot, all gangs were shot, starting from 16 years old, and a year later in the country it became quiet. We, apparently, will like this method now. There is a second way. Anyone who in a dark park catches up with the girl with the intention of raping her should know that he risks getting to get a 9-mm bullet in the belly, and his life will end. All the conversations that weapons are dangerous come from people who are used to looking at life either from power or from law enforcement agencies ... Any person with weapons is instinctively perceived as a potential criminal. For the XX century, this became the Soviet tradition.

Do you even admit the possibility that our law enforcement agencies can become different and begin to protect citizens?

Weller: I, of course, admit. Lord, maybe everything! All molecules will jump up, and we will take off ... I want to add a completely necessary thing. Of course, one cannot talk about the phenomenon in isolation. You can’t talk about the cancellation of the prohibition of weapons, not to mention changing criminal legislation, about the independence of the courts, the mandatory courts of jury, the competence of which should be analyzed serious crimes against the individual. It is impossible not to talk about the reform of law enforcement agencies. If nothing of this is done, but they will only give out pistols in the corners, then this will be another step of nonsense.

Question to you, Mr. Colonel. In 2000, the number of people who were attacked on the street, including weapons, was significantly higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Poland, Denmark and Sweden, where the weapons are not allowed than in the United States. Personal attacks in the UK are two times higher than in the United States of America. And this is 12 years after personal weapons were prohibited in England.

Babaev: The game with statistics is very seductive and very dangerous. She only outwardly seems easy. The adoption or cancellation of a specific measure-for example, the free sale of weapons or deaths-and the state of crime cases are far from so strictly connected. In addition, it is a mistake to believe that our population ardently supports the idea of ​​legalizing weapons.

Weller: When the Union broke up, in the republics where the law allows you to have weapons (in the Baltic states, Moldova), the number of serious crimes decreased. In Ireland, after the ban on wearing weapons, the number of murders over 24 years has grown 5 times. It does not exist if you take statistics for the past half a century, not a single state where the ban on weapons would lead to a decrease in murders, and permission to increase them.

Fragile hope

Sociologists say: three quarters of Russians - against the legalization of weapons.

Babaev: This, thank God, indicates that we are not slaves and we understand what weapons are. We understand what our level of law -abiding ... I'm not even talking about alcoholism, which is well known. I mean the relationship of citizens and the law. Where weapons are allowed, there are severe rules against the backdrop of deep respect for the law. We do not have this. I will allow myself to illustrate this with car systems: the road, like a magnifying glass, shows what we are. Pay attention to how the owners of the jeops behave with us. I am afraid of them like fire. Because if I accidentally touch him, then I will either receive this very bullet, or they will be beaten up, or I will have to pay the money that will really turn me into a slave for the rest of my life. This is just a jeep, big and strong. And if he still has weapons in the jeep?

But he will understand that you also have a weapon ...

Babaev: A weapon is a fragile hope that often breaks about arrogance, rudeness, strength. And when an elderly person, when a woman rides ... and with this trembling hand to bring a gun? In these conditions, the power of the strong will intensify and the weakness of the weak will not multiply.

That is, people are afraid that weapons will appear and will only be worse?

Babaev: A bunch of temptations will appear. And even if we give out 3 pistols for each person, 5 pistols, we still will not lead the desired order. As long as the police will not deal with criminals, but be distracted by the thousands in order to follow two dozens of demonstrators, to fulfill the functions unusual, serving the political activity of the authorities.

Weller: Indeed, most of our population believes that we cannot. They do not say: they, people, cannot be given weapons. They say: we, our people, cannot be given weapons. And this slave mentality, a feeling of oneself as people of non -cycled and inferior, to my grief, to my great regret, is the key to a bad future of the nation. Freedom means: if I am convinced that violence and injustice are happening over me, no one dares to bend my horn - neither the court nor the president.

Inevitable fee

Opponents of the legalization of weapons very often give one argument. A few weeks ago in Germany, a teenager came to school and shot a dozen and a half people. Let us recall the famous Moore film about how a teenager shot people ... In those US states where weapons are allowed, there are tragedies at school or in the store.

Weller: There is nothing absolutely good, absolutely safe. We have 35 thousand people in car disasters per year. This is a motorization fee. 100 thousand people per year (just like in America) die as a result of medical errors, and it is impossible to insure him to insure. Nevertheless, according to American statistics, about 2 million crimes per year are prevented using a firearm of self -defense. So, if you want 2 million crimes to prevent you to prevent 2 million (of which 10 thousand are prevented murders), then you will inevitably pay 10–20 lives, destroyed maniacs and idiots. This cannot be avoided. Every year in Russia, about 15 people die from icicles that have fallen from the roofs. We cannot cancel the roofs.

Babaev: We live in a world of risks. The task is not to multiply them.

Babaev Mikhail Matveevich - chief researcher at the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, professor of Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Doctor of Law. Retired police colonel.

Veller Mikhail Iosifovich is a writer, author of the books “Heart of Hearts”, “The Adventures of Major Zvyagin”, “Legends of Nevsky Prospekt”, “General Theory of All”, etc. One of the most published authors in Russia.