Economics and human rights. Andrey Sokolov
Чтение книги онлайн.
Читать онлайн книгу Economics and human rights - Andrey Sokolov страница 3
Название: Economics and human rights
Автор: Andrey Sokolov
Издательство: Издательские решения
Жанр: Юриспруденция, право
isbn: 9785449090874
isbn:
We must also remember that historically, weapons were forbidden to slaves and people who were slaves – Japanese and Chinese peasants.
Thus. The ban on carrying weapons equates citizens and residents to slaves.
And Article 4 of the Declaration of Human Rights prohibits slavery: “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery… are prohibited in all forms.”
Another aspect of the citizens’ right to arms is whether the state is afraid of its citizens.
The US is not afraid of its armed citizens – weapons are allowed and people even have the right to have an armed uprising authorized by law!
There is a beautiful story on this subject. Perhaps a true, perhaps anecdote, but it reflects well the essence of respect for the human right to life.
A story from a traffic policeman from Minnesota:
“One day, I stopped an elderly lady for speeding on track 210, at 197 miles, just east of McGregor, Minnesota.
I asked to present the rights, registration and insurance. The lady gave me the documents.
I was somewhat surprised (considering her considerable age), having found out among the documents a license for concealed carrying of weapons, and asked if she was armed at the moment.
The lady replied that yes, she had a 45-gauge pistol in the glove box.
Something made me ask, but does she have any weapons other than the one mentioned. She said that yes, she has 9mm Glock in the center console. Then I asked “Is this all?”. No, she said, there is still 38 caliber in her purse. Then I asked what she was so afraid of.
The lady stared at me and said: “I’m not afraid of shit.”
The right to arms is not only among US citizens. Below, you will see examples of how the legalization of weapons has affected the level of crime, and thus to ensure the right to life of people and save budget funds for the investigation of crimes. But these are significant amounts that could be spent with greater benefit to residents. For example, for round-the-clock coverage of roads, yards, streets. And criminals would have been harder, and an accident would have been less. For the same money. 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 have decreased, and tax revenues have grown, new businesses for the sale of weapons, safes for its storage, workshops, shooting galleries, training courses, etc. would have appeared. As for the defense… Who in the “sober mind” will try to fight with the country where every bush, every window can shoot? Thus, such a law is a deterrent force, like nuclear weapons. Only power is not costly, like an army or an atomic bomb, but a profitable, developing economy and replenishing the budget. This, perhaps, would have allowed even to reduce the cost of the army.
Taking into account all these arguments, the legislation of more than 20 countries of the world allows its citizens not only possession, but also wearing short-barreled weapons.
The right to bear and own weapons is an instrument for protecting life and health. The economic effect, the impact on the country’s budget, the impact on the criminal situation in the country arises from the fact that the number of crimes is reduced, that means the amount of budget expenditures for their investigation, search and capture of the criminal, court, prison, supervision, etc. is reduced. In this regard, an example of Estonia is illustrative, where the police budget after the legalization of arms was halved.
Just as vaccinations, if they are in many, protect from diseases those few who could not plant, as well as the presence of weapons in many, i.e. free arms sales protect those who do not have weapons. For the bandit does not know if a man is armed, since the right to arms is. And if he does not know, he will be careful to attack or rob.
Opponents of the presence of weapons from the public should remember that the police will come at the signal of robbery, rape, murder only when the crime has already been committed. And the man has already suffered. But the main task of the police, and the authorities in general, to prevent crime. The law on the free carrying of weapons is just such a preventive measure. A ban on weapons on the contrary prohibits citizens from protecting their lives and health.
Opponents of the legalization of weapons argue that they delegate the protection of their police rights. This argument does not stand up to criticism, not only because the police come 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 it does not forbid us to play sports or lead a healthy lifestyle. Delegating doctors the right to health protection does not lead to a ban on drug sales in pharmacies. Including without a prescription. But the delegation of the police right to protect life for some reason leads to a ban on legal weapons.
If weapons are prohibited that can save lives, then it is logical to prohibit condoms, bandages, plasters, harnesses, car first-aid kits and in general the provision of pre-medical care. They too can save a life. If you reach the limit of absurdity, then pharmacies should be banned – you can also poison yourself with, for example, salicylates, and excessive use of analgin or paracetamol leads to very deplorable consequences.
If the weapon is dangerous and can cause harm, and therefore it is forbidden, then the sale of knives, axes, chainsaws, cars and even bricks and ropes must also be banned. All this can turn into a weapon, harm life and health. All these things are dangerous.
However, only weapons are prohibited. Is it reasonable?
Here are a few examples. They are very modern and very similar in fact. But not by the result. In one case, a resident, a citizen was armed, the carrying of weapons was legalized. Two other results of the ban on the legal carrying of weapons, the ban on protection of life and health, the ban on the basic human right, was the defenselessness of citizens to the perpetrator and the huge number of victims.
If to speak from the point of view of economy – the country lost taxpayers who died in these incidents.
Jerusalem, Israel 01/08/2017
On this day in the center of Jerusalem, a truck, driven by a terrorist, entered a military group. Four died, another 15 people were injured. But the criminal was not stopped by a policeman, not a soldier, but by an ordinary civilian. But armed. Guide. Eitan Ron. This was reported by the Israeli Channel 9: “According to a 30-year-old guide, he was moving away from the military when a truck crashed into it. Ron was hurt and he flew to the side. “Fortunately, I had a gun, I fired a shot at the wheels, I realized that it was not enough, I ran and released all the clips on the cab.” The terrorist continued to go, when I shot the whole store, I realized that he was continuing to go to this the soldiers pulled up 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 military men who fled “… The published video of the attack confirms the words of Ron – СКАЧАТЬ