From the book by Andrey Sokolov, "Economics and Human Rights"
"Economics and Human Rights" is a book about how the observance of human rights affects the economy.
Weapons ... or ... Right to life and health
"The weapon itself does not lead
to an increase in the number of crimes "
When you walk down the street in the evening and see a noisy, maybe even aggressive company, or maybe a flickering shadow, or maybe hasty steps behind ... Do you feel safe?
Do you have a knife, spray can, whistle in your purse or pocket? Is a hatchet lying under the car seat? Have you attended self-defense training? Or maybe engaged in boxing or karate? Do you worry about your daughter or wife when they go somewhere without you? Are you sure that you can fight back the criminal if he wants to rob, kill, rape you?
How can you protect your life and health, your property, if you come across a strong, and even more so armed criminal, bandit, bully? And your wife, daughter, mother?
Are their lives and health protected in your country?
Do you want your daughter to be able to protect her life and health when meeting a robber, murderer, rapist?
How will she do it if she doesn’t have a gun, and the meeting with the criminal took place?
Politicians say - we have the 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 may catch the criminal if they can find him."
But you, already robbed, raped or killed. You have already suffered. You were not protected. Your rights to health, life, and the inviolability of property have already been violated. And the state has not protected you. For your taxes.
Why does the offender choose to sacrifice you, not a policeman or a military man?
Everything is very simple - they have weapons, but you do not. You are weaker, more defenseless.
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 "civilian" - they can not. A kind of segregation in the spirit of "a place only for whites." However, for whom is the risk higher for house robbery or in a dark alley? For a hefty bull from the police or for a girl or an old woman?
What does the state need to do to ensure your right to life, health, the right to preserve your property?
Just legalize the human right to self-defense, which means the right to acquire and carry weapons.
A law-abiding citizen needs a law to secure his right to life and health. A law that will allow the acquisition and carrying of self-defense weapons, including a pistol.
A criminal does not need such a law. He is a criminal and he is already walking with a gun. And it is beneficial for him that the law-abiding citizen does not have a gun. And when there is no law on the right to purchase and carry weapons in the country, the state protects the interests of the bandit, and not the right to life and health of a law-abiding taxpayer.
We must also remember that historically it was forbidden to have weapons for slaves and people who were in the position of slaves - Japanese and Chinese peasants.
The prohibition of carrying weapons equates citizens and residents with slaves.
And article 4 of the Declaration of Human Rights prohibits slavery: “No one shall be held in slavery or in servitude; slavery ... is prohibited in all forms. ”
Another aspect of citizens' right to arms is whether the state is afraid of its citizens.
The United States is not afraid of its armed citizens - weapons are allowed and people even have the right to an armed uprising fixed by law!
There is a beautiful story on this subject. Perhaps true, perhaps a joke, but it well reflects the essence of observing the human right to life.
The right to arms is not only for US citizens. Below you will see examples of how the legalization of weapons has affected the level of crime, which means ensuring the right to life of people and saving budget funds for the investigation of crimes. These are significant amounts that could be spent with greater benefit for residents. 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 decrease, and tax revenues would increase, there would be new businesses selling weapons, safes for their storage, workshops, shooting galleries, training courses and more. As for the defense ... Who in the "sober mind" will try to fight the country, where every bush, every window can shoot? Thus, such a law is a deterrent, like a nuclear weapon. Only by force not as expensive as an army or atomic bomb, but profitable, developing the economy and replenishing the budget. This, perhaps, would even reduce the cost of the army.
Given all these arguments, the legislation of more than 20 countries of the world allows its citizens not only possession, but also the carrying of short-barreled weapons.
The right to bear and possess weapons is a tool to protect life and health. The economic effect, the impact on the budget of the country, the impact on the criminal situation in the country arises from the fact that the number of crimes is reduced, which means that the amount of budget expenses for their investigation, search and capture of the offenders, court, prison, supervision, etc. is reduced. In this regard, an example of Estonia is illustrative, where the police budget after the legalization of weapons was halved.
Just as vaccines, if many have them, protect those few who were not able to vaccinate against diseases, so when many people have weapons, sale of weapons protects those who do not have weapons. For the bandit does not know if a person is armed, since there is a right to a weapon. And since he does not know, he will beware of attacking or robbing.
Opponents of the presence of weapons in the population should remember that the police will arrive on a signal of robbery, rape, murder only when the crime has already been committed. And the person has already suffered. But the main task of the police, and the authorities in general, is to prevent crime. The law on the free carrying of weapons is precisely such a preventive measure. A ban on weapons on the contrary prohibits citizens from protecting their life and health.
Opponents of the legalization of weapons claim that they are delegating protection of their rights to police . This argument does not hold water, not only because the police arrive 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 this does not prohibit us from playing sports or leading a healthy lifestyle. The delegation of the right to health protection to doctors does not prohibit the sale of medicines in pharmacies. Including without a prescription. But the delegation to the police the right to protection of life for some reason leads to a ban on legal weapons.
If weapons that can save lives are prohibited, then it would be logical to ban condoms, bandages, plasters, first-aid kits. They too can save lives. If you go to the limit of absurdity, then pharmacies need to be banned - you can poison yourself, for example, with salicylates, and the excessive use of analgin or paracetamol has very dire consequences.
And if the weapon is dangerous and can cause harm, and therefore it is forbidden, the sale of knives, axes, chainsaws, cars and even bricks and ropes should also be prohibited. All this can turn into a weapon, harm life and health. All these things are dangerous.
However, only weapons are prohibited. Is this reasonable?
Here are some examples. They are very modern and very similar in essence. But not by result. In one case, a resident, a citizen was armed, the carrying of weapons was legalized. In the other two, the result of the ban on the legal possession of weapons, a ban on the protection of life and health, a ban on the fundamental human right, has become the defenselessness of citizens against a criminal and a huge number of victims.
Speaking from the point of view of the economy, the country lost the taxpayers who died in these incidents.
Jerusalem, Israel 01/08/2017
On that day, a truck driven by a terrorist drove into a military group in central Jerusalem. Four were killed, another 15 people were injured. But it was not the policeman who stopped the criminal, not the soldier, but the ordinary civilian. But armed. Guide Eitan Ron. This was reported by Israeli Channel 9: “According to a 30-year-old guide, he was moving away from a group of soldiers when a truck crashed into it. Ron hit and he flew off to the side. "Fortunately, I had a gun, I shot on wheels, I realized that this was not enough, I ran and released the entire clip in the cockpit. The terrorist still continued to drive, when I shot the whole store, I realized that he continues to go to this the soldiers pulled up a moment 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 soldiers who ran away "... A promulgated video of the collision confirms Ron’s words - most of the military rushed to run back from the truck immediately after the collision, rather than trying to eliminate the driver." (Israel, Channel 9)
Nice, France, July 15, 2016
Only the police had weapons, and a truck with a terrorist crashed into a crowd on the embankment in Nice on the night of July 15, 2016, where the Bastille Day celebration was held. 86 people were killed.
The offender was shot dead by the police only after 86 people were crushed. All of them were without firearms.
Berlin, Germany, December 19, 2016
"In the evening, a truck crashed into a crowd of passers-by on the Breitscheidplatz square in Berlin, where a Christmas fair was organized ... Rescuers found several dead and about 50 wounded." All of them were unarmed.
Total. Subject to the observance by the state of the human right to life and health, while legalizing the carrying of weapons in Israel, the death toll is 4 people + criminal. In case of non-observance of human rights, with a ban on carrying weapons in France, 86 people died. In Germany - less, but only thanks to the truck computer and the heroism of the Polish driver who died at the hands of a terrorist. Perhaps if the driver had the right to bear arms, he would not have died. After all, the criminal had weapons. But the driver doesn’t.
To date, the world has accumulated quite a lot of statistics and experience of permits and prohibitions on the possession and carrying of weapons. Let's look at this experience.
In 1996, the Australian government banned the possession of many types of firearms, after which the number of armed robberies for eight years increased by 59%.
The law permits the storage and carrying of firearms, including rifled ones. After allowing the carrying and storage of civilian rifled weapons, a significant decline in serious crimes was recorded.
From the age of 25, a Brazilian may have a firearm for self-defense. Permission to acquire weapons is given by the Federal Police.
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.
Since January 1997, the British government has banned citizens from owning firearms. And this immediately led to an increase of 88% in violent crimes (the number of armed robberies - by 101%; the number of rapes - by 105%, murders - by 24%). In the United States, where the right to weapons is protected by the constitution, the number of similar crimes in the same year was half that in the United Kingdom.
53% of English robberies occur when someone is at home. In America, robbers admit that they are more afraid of armed homeowners than the policmans. As a result, the number of home robberies in the United States in the presence of the owners is 13%. Almost 5 times less.
In fairness, it would be necessary to compare the number of robberies per 100 thousand inhabitants, and not in percentage terms, but as will be shown later, this does not matter much in this case, since the trend towards a decrease in crime with an increase in the legal arsenal of weapons among law-abiding citizens is steadily observed during all countries.
A UN report in 2002 placed England and Wales at the top of crime tables among 18 developed countries, recognizing the UK as less secure.
5 years after the ban on firearms, crime with its use doubled. As expected, the ban on legal weapons led to the fact that only criminals became wielders of them.
After legislative authorization to store and carry firearms, a significant decline in serious crimes was recorded.
German citizens own 10 million units of legal weapons. The increase in the number of legal "trunks" has led to a reduction in crimes related to the use of weapons by 60%.
In Israel, anyone who has reached the age of 27 or has served in the army can buy and own weapons.
However, the high density of weapons of the population does not lead to an increase in the number of accidents, nor to a high level of illegal use of these weapons, which is usually frightening the average man or officials.
On the contrary, the recent history of Israel is filled with examples where the presence of weapons in law-abiding citizens helped them and others to maintain life and health.
There is a known case when, when a Bedouin gang attacked an Israeli farmer's family, the farmer shot and killed all the attackers. He saved both his life and his relatives. And then the police arrived ... to the corpses of bandits, and not to the corpses of law-abiding taxpayers.
Often criminals in Israel are “stopped” by passersby. A terrorist can be shot by a soldier on vacation or a civilian driving a criminal in a car.
This directly saves budget.
As an example, we can look at Russia, where weapons are prohibited, the number of police officers per capita is 976 employees per 100,000 population. Virtually every 100th 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. They neither build, nor sow, nor plow. Zero cost-effectiveness! More precisely - negative, because the crime rate exists somehow separately from them.
In Israel, 330 police officers per 100,000 population, i.e. 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 continuously 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.
In 1974, Ireland banned and confiscated a huge amount of small arms from the population, resulting in a five-fold increase in the number of killings.
Weapons for the population are legalized. Justice Minister Roberto Castelli said that from now on “criminals will have more to fear, and 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.
In Yemen, citizens from the age of 18 are allowed to own any kind of weapon. A license is needed only for carrying weapons, if there are sufficient grounds (work, position in society, etc.).
In Canada, weapons were previously sold freely. And after the introduction of severe restrictions and even the seizure of weapons from citizens, crime immediately increased by 45%.
The law permits the storage and carrying of firearms, including rifled ones. The result of this law was a significant reduction in the number of serious crimes.
The law permits the storage and carrying of firearms, including rifled ones. After allowing the carrying and storage of civilian rifles, a significant decline in serious crimes was recorded.
The Mexican Constitution gives citizens the right to have weapons for their own protection and for the protection of their property. In 2004, in addition to the Constitution, a law was passed that allowed Mexicans to keep in the house no more than two pistols with a caliber of up to 3.8 mm, and also to carry these weapons outside the house, including in public places.
After citizens were allowed to have pistols and revolvers in Moldova, crime almost halved.
As of 2003, Moldovan citizens have 6,000 firearms in their hands. Over 800 pistols and revolvers are acquired annually. With each purchase, of course, tax is paid.
Norwegians can purchase virtually any weapon. More than a third of the country's inhabitants are armed. To purchase weapons, you must obtain a license and justify the need for a purchase. After that, biographical verification and training in qualification courses are carried out.
However, the concealed or free carrying of weapons is prohibited. And as a result, Breivik’s crime. The citizens did not have weapons.
In Russia, in the hands of people, there are more than five million hunting rifles. Percentage is very small. 3-4%. The percentage of criminal use of legal firearms is a fraction of a percent.
At one of the briefings, the Main Department of Internal Affairs of St. Petersburg reported that 16 thousand legal hunting trunks accounted for only 2 cases of their illegal use per year. In total, in Russia legal weapons are used in crimes against a person about 5-10 times a year.
In Tsarist Russia, weapons were sold freely. Nagan or Browning was cost 16-20 rubles - half the average worker’s salary.
Weapons were banned in the USSR, and the virtually total ban on weapons that remained in Russia since Soviet times did not lead to a decrease, but to an increase in crime. The underworld is actively arming itself.
The state, complicating the legal circulation of weapons, facilitates the actions of bandits. Only 13% of the victims show resistance to the attackers and only in half of the cases are successful.
Thanks to the 2nd amendment of the Constitution, guaranteeing every citizen the right to own and carry weapons, US citizens are fully able to protect their lives and health. Approximately 43% of US households have firearms. This is about 90 million armed citizens. They say that "Abraham Lincoln gave people freedom, and Colonel Colt equalized their chances."
Specific conditions are regulated at the regional level. In 30 states, weapons can be carried openly, in 14, prior authorization is required, and only 6 states are prohibited from openly carrying firearms. Covert weapons are permitted in all states except Illinois.
Of course, in the media constantly appear data on shooting in the United States. One of the reasons for this is that most of these media are also American or broadcast news from the United States. The press in general follows the United States very closely, much more closely than the news from Colombia, for example. On the other hand, the United States 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 amount of weapons in people's hands, the number of residents and the percentage of criminal use of weapons, you get a completely different picture.
Professor David Mustard 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 killings is reduced by two percent annually.
According to the University of Chicago, in states where concealed carrying of weapons is allowed, the overall crime rate is less than in the "prohibiting" states by 22%, homicide rates - 33%, robberies - 37%, grievous bodily harm - 14% .
In those states of America where citizens are allowed to carry weapons in secret, the overall rate of violent crime is 18% lower than in Illinois, where carrying is prohibited.
In Illinois, where guns are forbidden, 289.7 killings per 100,000 people are committed. In states where secret carrying of weapons is permitted, 183.1 cases of 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 authorities banned possession of pistols and revolvers. As a result, crime tripled.
From 1973 to 1992, the number of weapons among US citizens increased by 73% - from 122 to 222 million units! The number of murders over the same years decreased by 10%.
The most stringent laws regarding the possession and carrying of weapons exist in the cities of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington. Only 5% of the US population lives in these cities. 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.
The city hall of the small town of Kennesaw (Georgia), in 1983, obliged residents to have at least one firearm per house. Over the 16 years of the application of this act in the city there were only three murders, two of which with a knife (1984 and 1987). And despite the fact that the population of the town over these 16 years has grown 4 times!
The total number of crimes against a person in Kennesaw during the year after the adoption of the law decreased by 74%, and a year later by another 45%. That is, only one realization that any person in the city can be armed has led to a significant reduction in crime.
Kennesaw’s example proves that the availability of firearms among citizens increases the level of public order and security. And it reduces, accordingly, the cost of ensuring security, reduces the burden on the budget and the police.
The second amendment of the US Constitution reads: "... the right of people to store and carry weapons should not be infringed." This right is enjoyed 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 doctor’s hands is the same scalpel - 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 US population is more than double the population of Russia. In the USA, weapons are allowed. In Russia, it is prohibited. At the same time, according to 1993 data, 23 thousand murders occurred in the United States and 29 thousand in Russia. Those. in terms of a percentage of the population, in a country where weapons are prohibited to citizens, twice as many are killed as in a country where weapons are legalized. Even the police in the United States, despite the huge number of weapons among residents, are killed twice less often than in Russia.
In the United States, according to data from 2016, with all the abundance of weapons in the hands of people, the number of killings was less than 5 people per 100,000 per year. In Russia, despite the ban, this figure is almost twice as high - more than 9 people per 100,000 population.
Official statistics from developed countries constantly note an increase in the level of homicides, while tightening the right to bear and store weapons.
Observations confirm the rule. From country to country, from example to example, the same picture repeats itself with almost mathematical precision. Citizens have more weapons - fewer crimes and murders.
Why, 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 above examples, the total number of lives and health saved with the free possession of weapons is greater than with the prohibitions on weapons.
As for the economy, it’s even easier. The more weapons sold legally, the more taxes paid, the more jobs created, the more taxpayers were alive.
If 150 million units of weapons were sold in the USA, and only 5 million in Russia, then how much more taxes went to the US treasury? And how many more shops, shooting galleries, repair shops, shooting clubs opened? How many more jobs have appeared? How many more citizens 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 with the use of weapons is a rather small percentage of all deaths caused not by disease or age. Much less than the noise about the ban on gun ownership.
So in 2001 in the USA 42,900 people died in road accidents. But the cars were not banned.
14,200 people died from a fall from a height of , which did not lead to a ban on the construction of skyscrapers.
From accidents due to asphyxiation (choking on food), 4,200 were killed, but this did not entail the widespread closure of restaurants and cafes.
3900 people died from fire and other sources of fire and smoke, but matches and lighters can still be bought at any supermarket.
800 people died from firearms during the same time period.
"Given the number of pistols in the hands of the US population and the annual number of killings, the probability of using a single pistol to commit a murder is one in ten thousand. The risk of losing one’s life by drowning in a pool is higher than the risk of dying from a bullet." (Stephen Levitte)
If we summarize the data of the FBI, the police and scientists, it turns out that an increase in the number of weapons in the hands of the population leads to a decrease in the number of their use. Not even killings or injuries. Just "shoot less."
Owners of firearms are much less likely to be victims of burglars. Moreover, the use of firearms as a means of self-defense rarely ends in blood. Only in 1% of cases the offender is injured and in a tenth of a percent of cases - killed. That is, there is enough threat and a shot in the air to prevent a crime in 99% of cases before the police arrive.
It was also noted that if the law allows only to keep weapons at home, street crime increases dramatically, especially for pensioners and young women. But as soon as the law allows not only storage, but also the carrying of weapons - street crime is sharply reduced.
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. It is important to note that the number of robberies fell not from an increase in pistols in houses, but only from permission to shoot at the slightest threat to property or health. It is perfectly acceptable to make the assumption 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. In this case, two-thirds of firearms in the United States are in the hands of civilians. The police and the army are in a clear minority - one third.
If we follow the logic of opponents of weapons for citizens, then such a "powder" barrel would have exploded. But this does not happen. And as shown above, only according to official statistics, the US is safer for the country's inhabitants than, for example, Russia is two to four times.
When it comes to the right to life, so the right to own weapons for self-defense is obviously indisputable. And large numbers prove that it is not only logical, but also safe and economically justified.
In the United States, approximately 100 thousand cases of the use of firearms for self-defense are registered annually. Those. 100 thousand times the right to arms helped 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, since the police did not have to investigate 100 thousand murders, robberies and rape. This led to the receipt of taxes from the sale and maintenance of 100 thousand weapons and ammunition to the budget. 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 better secured than, for example, in the 80th year. According to the FBI, only 213 crimes a year ended in the death of a criminal in 2005-2010. Those. scaring off a weapon is not at all something to hurt or kill. Scared off 100 thousand times. Only 213 were killed.
The Czech Republic, along with Switzerland and Estonia, is one of the most armed countries in Europe, if you count the number of firearms during of the population. In the Czech Republic, you can not only buy weapons without explaining the reason for the purchase, but also secretly carry them. It is no coincidence that is why the Czech Republic is one of the safest European countries.
In addition to reducing crime, the right to weapons in the Czech Republic has led to the development of an entire industry. And today shooting sport is almost as popular as football or hockey.
It is unlikely that an unbiased reader will be able to recall at least one case of the use of weapons in this country that led to the tragedy. After all, it is precisely tragedies, such as shootings in US schools or Breivik's crime, that the opponents of arms cite as the main argument for the ban.
The logic of this argument is "limping on both legs." It is rare when people and the media discuss fatal accidents, but always and very loudly - air crashes. At the same time, much more people die on the roads and in road accidents than in air accidents.
In 2014, 426 crimes involving firearms, including gas and signal pistols, were committed in the Czech Republic. During the same period, 21054 automobile accidents with human injuries occurred in the Czech Republic.
According to Czech Interior Minister Milan Hovanets, weapons in the hands of citizens will help in the fight against terrorism. He believes that Czech citizens should have the right to defend “life, health and property” with arms in their hands. 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.
Switzerland is one of the most quiet and safe countries in Europe ... and the most armed.
When the Swiss leave the army, they take their weapons (M-57 rifle and 24 sets of rounds or SIG SG-550 rifle and 50 rounds) to their home. True, pensioners are required to pass the M-57, instead of which they receive a pump-action shotgun.
The possession of weapons is not only permitted, but encouraged. With a population of only 6 million people, up to 3 million weapons are privately owned. Of these, 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.
The government sponsors training in arms handling, holding shooting competitions, promotes the possession of weapons among women. Army units sell off surplus weapons that civilians buy. The proceeds replenish the budget, and the right to carry arms freely makes the country safe.
Sweden, like Switzerland, is a country with a high percentage of the population that owns firearms. The 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).
Since 2001, in Estonia, citizens from the age of 21 can acquire, store and carry firearms. Owners of more than eight units are required to equip a special storage with an alarm system. Collectors can own army weapons. At the hands of one and a half million inhabitants of this country are 120 thousand trunks.
After the legalization of pistols, street crime decreased by 80%, which allowed halving the police. The number of killings after the legalization of weapons was reduced by five times!
After a complete ban on the possession of any small arms was introduced in 1974 in Jamaica, the number of killings increased from 11.5 people per 100 thousand of the population in 1973 to 41.7 in 1980.
Perhaps the Jamaican authorities operated on typical arguments of the opponents of weapons: "Weapons will not help you!" "You will not have time to apply it!"; "You can't shoot a man!"
These arguments are unconvincing and have no evidence. It is not up to the official and the deputy to decide what will help the person and what will not. What he will have time to do and what not. What can he do in a critical situation. Adult citizens can easily resolve these issues themselves without the intervention of lawmakers.
As shown above, crime is reduced only by the theoretical possibility that a potential victim (a law-abiding taxpayer) may have a weapon. Thus, health, property and the right to human life are protected to a greater extent not by the gun, but by the legal right to have and wear it.
“In the vast 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 money and topple before the arrival of the police. And it is the citizens who are capable of spoiling their plans, especially if the citizens are armed and protected by law. ”
Let's look at weapons as goods. Potentially dangerous, but protecting life, useful, developing the economy goods, from the sale of which a tax is paid, i.e. the budget is replenished.
Buying weapons for self-defense is no more dangerous than buying pyrotechnics, a car, a motorcycle, a pneumatic hammer, a chainsaw, a knife or an ax.
The state is obliged to help citizens protect their lives and property, and therefore there is a police force. But the police will not have time to arrive at the time of rape, murder, robbery. This means that the state cannot provide citizens with the protection of their life and health. Therefore, it must allow them to do this on their own, i.e. to acquire weapons for self-defense.
Everything is extremely simple. On one side of the scale is the observance of the human rights to life, health, work, rest, as well as budget revenues, which means pensions, benefits, roads, kindergartens and schools. And on the other side of the scale there is a violation of human rights, a budget deficit, low pensions, poor roads, underfunding of medicine and science, crowded school classes, street crime and serious crimes. So what is the point of voting?
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 so, then how is a policeman different from a bandit? After all, they are both armed.
The presence of goods on store shelves and vegetables in 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.
Selling knives does not lead to an increase in killings and does not force a person to kill.
There is the concept of the presumption of innocence, so it is necessary to separate the "flies from cutlets."
Theft is a crime, a deviation from the norm. The presence of this fact does not lead to the closure of stores and the fencing of fields and gardens with barbed wire.
Murder is a crime, but not a reason to ban the sale of knives, axes, hunting rifles, etc.
Adultery is a personal sin within the same family and is its private affair. It is not good for the state to interfere in the bedding of citizens if these cases do not threaten the life and health of other people.
Cruelty to the weak - children, women - a crime. But there is no reason to ban family or childbearing.
Let's focus not on small 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, not a political issue “no matter what happens”, but a simple and unconditional observance of the human right to life and health.
From the point of view of economics, the legalization of weapons means saving the lives and health of taxpayers, reducing budget expenditures, new jobs in the legal weapons industry - shops, sellers, repairs, maintenance ... and again, taxes, taxes, budget revenues and revenues. This is a decrease in street crime, a decrease in the number of robberies and crimes against the person.
And it is profitable. It is beneficial for the state to respect human rights.
The right to bear and possess weapons is an instrument to protect life and health - it is part of the human right to life and health.
The economic effect, the impact on the budget of the country, the impact on the criminal situation in the country from the legalization of carrying weapons is very significant. Crime and budget spending are declining, and budget revenues are increasing.
Anyone has the right to life. It follows from this that he has the right to protect his life. Than? This is regulated by law. With a knife and a baseball bat, an ax ... or a gun.
It is important to remember that the threat of life from bandits occurs contrary to the requirements of the law.
This means that the right to possess and bear arms is an unconditional human right, for it is his right to life.
Legalization of the arms market leads to the confidence of citizens in immediate protection, without waiting for the arrival of the police. Along with the replenishment of the budget, the legal sale of weapons reduces the number of illegal, tax-free, sales.
Think it over. How many hours does a policeman spend on illegal weapons? How many hours will the policeman spend on investigating the crime? Multiply by the number of crimes against personality and property. And you will find out how much the budget will get from a simple line in the law “the acquisition, storage and carrying of firearms is permitted”.
However, it can be even easier. If the government is afraid of its citizens, if it rules so that there is a risk of rebellion, then the government forbids weapons. If the government rules well, if it is not afraid of its citizens, then the weapon is legalized.
If the reader has doubts about the reliability of the data, the objectivity and usefulness of the author’s arguments, if the reader is still tormented by doubts and familiar ideas about what is permissible, if the reader thinks that legalization poses problems, then let's change the angle slightly.
According to the UN declaration, and according to the common sense of any person about his personal life, human rights are primary in relation 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 possession and carrying of arms.
Does it threaten anything? Maybe. Although the facts suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, in terms of threats, we need to 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 about the dangers or benefits of legalization, but about whether the ban 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. Each individual, and not an abstract society or state.