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. Its 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)
Lets 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, thats 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 peoples 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.
Lets 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.
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 countrys 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 authors 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 lets 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.
Prostitution and the right to life, health, work, rest
Or The state! Do not go to bed with people! Take care of a worthy deed!
Strange as it may seem, talking about crime, which can be greatly reduced through the legalization of weapons, immediately leads us to the question, and at the expense of which the criminals live, where the maximum of crimes against the person is committed, where the state also does not want to ensure the inhabitants the right to life and health. And also for work and rest. The first thing that comes to mind when talking about crime is drugs and prostitution.
Lets start with prostitution one of the types of criminal business that is not criminalized by the will of people employed in it, but by the will of a state that does not want to legalize their work.
The same was in the United States when introducing a dry law. Illegal alcohol immediately became the cause of the growth of crime.
If tomorrow some state wants to prohibit milk, milkmen will fall into the sphere of criminal attention. They will forbid treatment the crime will be dealt with by doctors.
So is it reasonable to prohibit?
A person has the right to work. This right is as immutable as the right to life.
Prostitution is work. If someone does not believe he can try and make sure.
Maybe this work is not prestigious, it may not be very aesthetic, someone may not like this profession, but so are the sanitizers or pathologists, too, are not among the prestigious professions. The janitor is also not prestigious. Or the waiter.
But just as the state provides the right to work for a nurse, nurse or social worker, it is obliged to ensure the right to work and rest for a prostitute (prostitute), and hence to legalize prostitution.
Not all people want to be prostitutes. But not everyone wants to be policemen, doctors, teachers, plumbers, politicians, officials, dancers, masseurs, hairdressers or programmers.
A woman does not become a criminal by choosing the work of a janitor or waitress. But it becomes, choosing the work of a prostitute.
A waitress woman can call the police if the client does not pay if she behaves badly. And the waitress will get protection, and the client the punishment. But a prostitute can not.
However, not only a woman, but also a man. For, as prostitutes are of both sexes, so are the clients.
I ask the reader not to consider the author as a sexist. The author will use the word prostitute, woman or she only in the above context. The context of the two sexes is both clients and employees. The female genus will be used solely to reduce the amount of text, as well as the most common type of sexual services. Womens services for men.
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
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 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.