Take out into the snow

The mayor of Chita, Anatoly Mikhalev, publicly expressed regret that homeless people should not be shot. “Unfortunately, we do not have a license to shoot homeless people, and today there are no other legal ways to deal with them,” Rosbalt quotes the words of this philanthropist.

Just think: 90% of places in social shelters in the Trans-Baikal Territory are occupied by homeless people. They dare to demand equal costs from the state as workers and give nothing in return. For one homeless patient (a sort of bastard) in Chita hospitals they spend more than 17 thousand rubles. This is a loss to the treasury - after all, taxpayers could be lying on their beds. The mayor is outraged.

However, he found a more humane way of “how to cope” with people without a fixed place of residence. The method was borrowed from Soviet times. “In my opinion, the only way to solve this problem is to introduce, for example, the concept of “parasite” at the federal level with appropriate responsibility,” Mikhalev said.

Apparently, no one explained to the mayor of Chita, for example, how people lose their apartments, that homeless people, as a rule, are not born on the street, but appear there due to various external circumstances, for which they are often not to blame. No one showed him the statistics published on the website of the St. Petersburg regional charitable public organization for helping persons without a fixed place of residence “Nochlezhka”. Otherwise, he would have known that, for example, in 2010, for 37.7% of people who found themselves on the street, the reason for this was family problems, for 23% it was fraud in the sale of housing, and for 21% it was economic migration. Maybe Mikhalev believes that the situation in Chita is different, that all the homeless people in Chita are not even completely human. Perhaps, however, he knows about the data presented above and believes that the above reasons still provide grounds for shooting the homeless. Or maybe he doesn’t consider anything at all - it’s just that it doesn’t cost him, in power, anything to express regret that a person can’t just be picked up and killed.

Isn’t it worth introducing, for example, the concept of “cannibal” with corresponding responsibility for such government officials at the federal level?