The terrorist attack in Crocus raised questions among the authorities about the armament of the population

Senator Rogozin and Deputy Khinshtein expressed useful ideas

From a purely human point of view, one can understand the emergence of a discussion after the terrorist attack in Crocus that the population needs weapons. Because it’s scary, and the “barrel” creates a feeling of protection from criminals. But the logic is lame. A terrorist attack and weapons in hand are completely different issues.

The picture is usually drawn like this. Some scoundrels appeared at a mass event and started shooting, and immediately the citizens grabbed their guns and fought back the attackers with well-aimed fire. The reality of this picture is like walking to China.

First, shooting effectively in a crowd rather than at a crowd takes years of training. Panic, everyone is running around chaotically, children are roaring, women are screaming… Well, try, take aim.

Secondly, people go to concerts to relax. And if you have a weapon, then you must be at least sober. Does a drunk or simply exalted citizen with a gun next to you scare you?

Thirdly, let’s say a few minutes after the shooting starts, special forces fly in and see you with a weapon in your hands. Will you have time to tell the fighter who will instantly take aim at you that you are all good here and are not a terrorist at all?

Security at public events is the task of specially designated security personnel. Armed and trained guards who can eliminate (or at least minimize) the threat “on the outskirts.” This is expensive and labor-intensive, and therefore the owners of shopping centers and concert halls do not bother. Therefore, it is absolutely logical for Deputy Khinshtein to write that it is necessary to change the law, according to which today private security organizations (PSOs) are not obliged to set up armed posts at public facilities, and “to assign a direct responsibility to the PSOs: to provide armed protection of facilities with increased anti-terrorism protection.”

And in any case, the state will never allow private individuals to attend mass events with weapons. Moreover, a rally is also a mass event. But an armed rally is no longer quite a rally.

It is obvious that weapons in the hands of the population will in no way save them from terrorist attacks like the tragedy in Crocus. And lumping together the issues of protecting such facilities and their visitors from terrorists and the legalization of carrying short-barreled weapons is not justified.

But they would not have mixed if there had been no problem with the “feeling of security” among the population. And it not only exists, it grows.

Yes, any sane citizen can purchase a weapon from us. In the most common case – hunting. And keep it in a safe at home. Not charged. Wearing is prohibited. And who will walk around with a Berdanka? And to use it for self-defense, given the current state of legislation in this matter, is often more expensive.

If we discard all unnecessary things, then in order for people to feel safe, according to supporters of gun rights (by the way, I am one of them), we get this: citizens need to be allowed to freely carry short-barreled weapons and use them to protect themselves and others. It sounds simple, but in reality there are a lot of subtleties. All this can (and, alas, will) be discussed endlessly.

And people are scared right now. And right now, for example, I would support the idea expressed, among other things, by the senator from the Zaporozhye region Rogozin: to give the right to freely carry a service pistol to officers of the Russian army. This practice existed in the USSR until the end of the 60s.

In a country at war, the sight of a military officer with a service weapon evokes in any normal citizen, with unspoiled liberal brain metastases, a legitimate feeling of reliability, support, and security. And vice versa – it causes fear and rejection among the enemies of the people. A useful idea in every sense. We need to implement it.