Maxim Popenker, creator of the website about weapons world.guns.ru

Material from Lurkmore

not
for quality .

Jump to: navigation, search

Maxim Rudolfovich Popenker

(01/03/1973) (intern. mpopenker, Heb. race. מקסים פופנקר) - Jewish racial distributor of dull books for drinking gesheft, owner[1] fat troll of the Hansa and the secondary LEGOlizer of this country. ERJ. Greedy for money. He likes to travel abroad, to dubious meetings with older men who hold LegoLize.

Activities on the Internet

He trolls pottreots like the doctor with a saber in a cozy little place dr_guillotin himself and gives it to others. He keeps people like arbat and people like tarlith_history as friends at the same time, which is what he delivers. He lowers the American racial nigr or Russian racial churok below the plinth at least once a week, here again ...

Despite In full accordance with his passion for weapons and collecting cartridges, he sacredly honors the criminal code and, without hesitation, punishes particularly zealous ganzers with an anal banhammer, persistently asking where to buy a pistol, or proving the origin of all the weapons in the world straight from Shushpangever.

Recently I got completely fucked up and joined the post-treotic social network Berloga where I troll Putinists, promoting short-barreled guns in the local phimosis spirit.

Also, most of the comments on posts on his LiveJournal (and the posts themselves) are examples of spherical, sparkling humor in a vacuum. Fearing a small attack by trolls on his blog, he introduced a shy anal fence in the form of pre-moderation of anonymous messages.

Also, with his “extensions” (sic!) is in the first hundred of the Grammar Nazi hit list. I would also like to add that English-speaking colleagues often shit bricks from Popenker’s clumsy English in the English version of “one little-known site.”

Judging by the amount of advertising on “one little-known site” and the number of pop-up windows with advertising, it has finally become a scam and is on par with the Goblin in this regard.

[edit] Memeticity

Although Popenker personally is little known outside of Hansa, several YouTube channels and a couple of American weapons-related sites, the citation index of his Web 1.0 site about small arms world.guns.ru (AKA “One Little-Known Site™”) is screwed up by his tame hamsters and threatens to flood This Google of yours is shit. He is experiencing wild butt-hurt from copying from his dull resource for schoolchildren, while the butt-thurt of those from whom Popenker copied materials for his site does not bother his ERG-darling.

Professional suitability

Despite the fact that among the school community the subject is considered an undeniable authority on weapons, some have characterized its website as complete fantasy in terms of the performance characteristics of weapons. They believe that Max often embellishes the characteristics of weapons in his opuses. None of the subject's books have ever been reviewed by either civilian or military weapons experts. This does not prevent the author from trading them profitably since the target audience is young and old school children, whose access to weapons is limited, at best, to a shooting range. The historical part of them causes cheerful laughter among historians, since the word “source study” is simply unknown to Maxim. For the most part, problems with performance characteristics concern only particularly ancient positions. This can be partly attributed to the fact that Maxim himself was once not very literate in this regard. Only here’s the problem: the most famous samples (like the M-16) were described first, and accordingly they are the oldest. And recently, only trunks unknown to anonymous people have been added, and it is extremely difficult to verify anything with them. In addition, Popenker likes to give examples of successful armed self-defense of law-abiding US citizens, but finds it difficult to give good, suitable examples for this country and its surrounding lands (which is generally quite difficult, given that most of the facts of self-defense with weapons in the US are related (SUDDENLY ) with a short barrel, for which Rasei got hit in the butt, but as usual...). Often uses the acronym IMO, which hints at increased heart rate.

[edit] IRL activities

He became interested in weapons in childhood due to an inferiority complex, since both then and now he is a wimpy scum and dreams about a firearm, with the help of which he would be able to anally punish his goyim offenders, were for him the only way to escape from the harsh reality with its pussy and violin. In his younger years, after a short army career, he got a job as a greyhound writer in some liberal media, and in the 2000s he became a pogromist. He writes books on the history of firearms, consisting of a little more than entirely of the author's phimosis and copy-pasting of other people's materials, fap furiously on models, meets with men in the foreign countries he so dislikes, periodically goes to shoot, however, not very accurately, since he is an asshole, and he’s as greedy as YERZh and doesn’t allocate money for ammunition for practice. Since June 9, 2016, he has been a marketer in the service of the Kalashnikov concern, which in itself is an oxymoron, because the subject had a considerable amount of skepticism towards the AK and the domestic armored industry in general. In his new position, he became a zealous defender of the concern's products - obviously receiving much more for this than any worker or simple engineer at Izhmash. Since February 2022, however, he no longer works there - in his own words, he was simply “tired of being politically correct, as required by corporate rules.” However, despite the dismissal, he remained an ardent promoter of CoCa, which indicates, perhaps, that he still had some bonuses from his previous place of work.

Notes

1. [1], part-time [[2]] tame hamsters in his sad blog

Maxim Popenker, creator of the website about weapons world.guns.ru

Czech

[08.02 10:35] what rules must be followed to acquire weapons injuries? Which of these rules would you remove and which would you add? Thank you.

The rules are described in the Law “On Weapons”. In short, you need to be 18 years of age or older, have no criminal record, not be registered with a psychoneurological or drug treatment center, pass a medical examination and obtain the consent of your local police inspector. In my opinion, nothing should be removed from this list; perhaps it would be worth adding a test on legislation, rules for the handling and use of weapons.

Nikolay

[08.02 13:01] 1) Is it possible to introduce such restrictions as to weed out those people who will never learn to use weapons? I have those who seem to be law-abiding people, are not registered in a psychiatric hospital, and have passed the medical examination. And in a critical situation (for example, in a dispute with a neighbor), he does not control himself and shoots at everything that moves. And such a person is very tempted to use even a traumatic argument.

2) What restrictions should be introduced to reduce the number of self-inflicted gunshots and the appearance of minors with weapons (any and traumatic) in schools (American scenario)? Crossbows, I think, are not rare in Russia.

1. No, you can’t. At least not for everyone; this requires extensive psychological tests.

2. Crossbows are reduced by training in proper handling of weapons. Mass slaughter is excluded only by the general healthy climate in society.

Krishna

[08.02 14:14] Good afternoon!

1) What specific changes do you think we should expect and when will they come into force?

2) Isn’t it a funny reason - only 32 (!) criminal cases per YEAR in a city with a real population of about 20 million? What is this? Are the authorities disarming the people in anticipation of possible unrest?

Vlad

[08.02 11:54] in your opinion, what will the regulation of the circulation of traumatic weapons consist of?

Alexei

[08.02 17:55] Hello, Maxim.

Don't you think this hysteria with traumatic weapons among the highest echelons of power is very suspicious? It seems that the authorities are looking for any convenient way to “tighten the screws.” The statistics of “terrible crimes” involving the use of traumatic weapons do not stand up to criticism - many more people are killed with fists and feet and more often, not to mention knives and improvised objects.

Don’t you think that the authorities simply strive to protect themselves as much as possible from the common people?

I can’t say anything about possible changes and timing.

The reason is certainly funny. But I don’t really believe in “disarmament of the people by the authorities,” for various reasons.

Chelyabinets

[08.02 18:20] at what age should permission be given to purchase weapons?

From the same point as now - from the age of 18. Since by law you can drive a car and handle a machine gun (in the army), then you have grown up for civilian weapons.

Alexander

[08.02 17:25] As an example, due to my work, I am in a high-risk group for attack, but I cannot buy a “barrel” traumatic gun, since I am not a private security officer or a security officer. And if I am (pah-pah-pah) completely attacked, then the attack will most likely be with the use of military weapons. A barrelless traumatic gun is an extra burden in such a situation. The second example, they tried to rob a person, but without using weapons, three drunk, obviously more “fit” guys beat the victim with their feet, intending to rob and steal a car. The victim breaks free and uses a traumatic weapon. All of them end up in the hospital with serious injuries. The attackers receive 3 years probation. A traumatist who received 5 years of general regime. Maxim, don’t you think that those who are responsible for the development and adoption of laws on weapons do not really understand what weapons are (in fact, who needs them and why) and what they eat them with (I’m talking about the regulatory framework that literally ties one’s hands and legs have a legal use)?

GhostHope

[08.02 13:43] Good afternoon. Maxim, don’t you think that before introducing new rules for regulating the use of weapons, it is worth developing and adopting new laws and amendments to the current ones that would allow people to finally know why and how they can protect their property and lives?

Here we should talk about law enforcement practice and the interpretation of the concept of “necessary defense” by our courts. Of course, the attitude of the courts towards self-defense needs to be changed.

Alexei

[08.02 17:14] Don’t you think that the issues of the permissibility of using weapons are more pressing than the issues of the actual acquisition of traumatic weapons?

It is no secret that it is very difficult to prove that a weapon had to be used.

Don’t you think that clear regulation of the conditions of use, on the one hand, will discipline citizens, and on the other, will allow those who actually used weapons for their intended purpose to feel more confident in the legal sense?

Already now the law, in my opinion, quite clearly states that weapons can be used in case of a threat to life and health. But how the courts interpret this very “sufficiency” and the presence of a threat is another question.

Alexey M.

[08.02 16:27] Hello!

Tell me, Maxim, don’t you consider the problem raised, to put it mildly, “not a priority”? Perhaps it is much more important to decide whether we can, in principle, use our natural right to protect ourselves, our loved ones and our property from the encroachment of someone (meaning the so-called “exceeding the limits ...”)? After all, in the end, choosing the type of weapon for self-defense is a secondary issue. Just like the system of its accounting and control.

I consider the topic of “over-regulation” of traumatic weapons to be a far-fetched idea. But since it has been raised, it needs to be discussed and covered, so that the incompetent advisers of our powers that be do not quietly do things behind our backs.

Marat

[08.02 12:53] Maxim, good afternoon.

1. Do you think that carrying any weapon makes a person relaxed? It seems to me that a person becomes less collected and no longer relies on weapons.

2. How and in what situation is it legal to use a traumatic weapon? What threatens the owner of the weapon if, while repelling an attack, he seriously injures or kills the enemy?

1. On the contrary, weapons help you stay collected.

2. Lawfully use weapons to protect life and health. Only the court can say what awaits the person who applied it based on the specific circumstances of the case.

Alexey Ignatov

[08.02 12:59] Don’t you think that the introduction of restrictions will lead to the fact that it will be easier to buy conventional weapons, because the illegal purchase of the same wasp will be the same violation as PM

I am not sure that such strict restrictions will be introduced.

Denis

[08.02 11:11] Hello, Maxim.

How, in your opinion, will the measures being discussed affect those who already have a license and conscientiously comply with the requirements of the law. What (or who) specifically will they be aimed at and what will they give in the end. After all, most cases of unjustified or illegal use of weapons occur precisely with the participation of unregistered units.

I suspect that it will all come down to the behind-the-scenes competition between manufacturers and distributors of different types of traumatic weapons.

Scythian

[08.02 11:17] 1) What are the statistics of crimes related to the use of traumatic weapons and crimes related to illegal trafficking of weapons.

2) Will it be that, under the banner of combating traumatic weapons, the state leaves citizens defenseless against criminals armed with firearms and against the arbitrariness of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

3) Doesn’t it seem that the state and its law enforcement agencies are afraid of their people, and even more so afraid of armed people, even if the weapons are only traumatic. After all, cases like “Rechnik”, a rally in Kaliningrad, problems with single-industry towns have become more frequent.

1. A very small number of crimes per year are committed with traumatic weapons. At the same time, in recent years, the total number of crimes with weapons in Russia has been constantly decreasing, despite the fact that the armament of the people (including traumatic weapons) is growing.

2. Can anyone now seriously defend themselves against the arbitrariness of the Ministry of Internal Affairs with trauma? Traumatic weapons are designed primarily for protection against petty street crime.

3. Don't make people laugh. A traumatic weapon against riot police with machine guns and in armor is like pellets to an elephant. The reasons, it seems to me, are completely different.

Eugene

[08.02 17:45] Hello, Maxim!

1) Do you think the resolution of trauma in Russia has led to an increase or decrease in crime?

2) In general, how is the use of traumatic weapons prescribed in our laws? For example, when to shoot: when did the bandit get angry, when did he pull out a knife, or when did he swing? And what will happen if this bandit is injured in the event of a shot?

The crime rate in any country is determined by the sum of complex social, economic and political factors. The presence of civilian weapons suitable for self-defense only increases the protection of citizens who decide to acquire such weapons from a number of criminal threats. Of course, guns are not a panacea, but they are a useful tool that increases individual safety, especially in conditions where public law enforcement institutions are not working at their best.

omecid

[08.02 10:39] Maxim, please tell me

1. How the police react when it is discovered that a person has a traumatic weapon on him.

2. How many people have been convicted of using traumatic weapons?

1. Checks documents for weapons. If the documents and weapons are in order, then, as a rule, no special questions arise.

2. I don’t have exact statistics, but as far as I know, not much.

SNP

[08.02 13:56] Maxim, and one more question.

For some reason, I can’t find statistics on crimes involving weapons committed by law enforcement officers (including unlawful use during arrest, etc). Don't you have it? It would be interesting to compare the proportion of law enforcement officers who misuse firearms with the proportion of similar cases among civilian firearm owners.

Michael

[08.02 13:46] Hello Maxim!

Is there such statistics:

1. How many people died from the use of traumatic weapons by ordinary citizens?

2. How many people died from the use of (illegal) weapons and special equipment by law enforcement agencies?

3. How many people died from the use of improvised means? (irons, kitchen knives, axes, etc.)

4. Shouldn’t the sale of improvised means be tightened?

I don’t have recent statistics on unlawful actions of our law enforcement officers specifically with weapons, but the official figures in the early 2000s were relatively small - the losses of the officers themselves from inept and illiterate handling of their own weapons were higher. In the open printed publications of the Ministry of Internal Affairs available to me, it is directly indicated that the majority of employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs are poorly trained in handling and using weapons. Many explanations for this fact can be found, but this is already the task of the Ministry of Internal Affairs themselves.

SNP

[08.02 11:44] Maxim, don’t you think after Medvedev’s public speech that he doesn’t even know how the existing permitting system works? And that someone simply put noodles on the president’s ears in the interests of the Ministry of Internal Affairs?

It seems to me that someone misled the president on the issue of trafficking in traumatic weapons. I don’t know who did it, how consciously and in whose interests.

Alexander Maltsev

[08.02 15:09] Maxim, what is your personal opinion about all this hype? For some reason, the news does not say that in order to obtain permission to use a rubber rifle, you need to undergo a medical examination, receive a report from the local police officer, and then only submit this set of documents to the LRO. Now on TV everything is presented in such a way that even a blind criminal or alcoholic can easily acquire a traumatic weapon. It may be worth checking out the people responsible for issuing these documents, who are stamping the reports and medical reports. information, and not to make another fuss.

Basil

[08.02 15:19] Hello Maxim! As a regular visitor to your site and the owner of a traumatic weapon, I ask you to answer the question.

According to available statistics, there are tens of times more cases of the use of military firearms, including by the police, against ordinary citizens than traumatic ones. However, all this fuss in the media is raised specifically against traumatic weapons. And this despite the fact that the requirements for obtaining a license to purchase it in Russia are much more stringent than in most European countries. It is characteristic that the issue of tightening the rules for the sale of traumatic weapons was considered in the upper echelons of power long before Medvedev’s speech. How can you explain this?

Thank you.

Because the average journalist, alas, does not bother checking the facts.

Dmitriy

[08.02 10:59] Hello, Maxim.

I am a long-time visitor to your site and I am always interested in visiting it, for which you personally receive my special thanks.

And now the question:

How much can a traumatic weapon really protect and how dangerous is it during an attack?

Thank you. Good luck.

Everything, as usual, depends on a lot of specific conditions. In one situation, an armored limousine and a guard armed with a pistol will not save you; in another, any heavy object that comes to hand will suffice. In a situation with street hooligans, petty robbers, or attempted violence, a traumatic weapon may well help.

Unfortunately, I don’t understand what you mean by “attack”. As for the danger of weapons in general, if they weren’t dangerous, they wouldn’t be weapons, would they?

Dmitriy

[08.02 11:50] I would like to know who needs this traumatic weapon? What is the chance that its use will stop the criminal? How much will it cost?

It is for those who believe they may be attacked by petty street criminals or otherwise subject to violence by individuals or small groups. The chance of success in defending with a weapon depends on a number of conditions, as well as the type of weapon and the skill of its owners. Traumatic weapons now cost an average of 6 to 30 thousand rubles per unit.

Maksim

[08.02 12:48] Don’t you think that traumatic weapons can sometimes be more dangerous than firearms, due to the fact that some owners use them quite easily, without thinking that a bullet from an Osa can easily kill a person. There are quite a lot of examples of this. Thank you

Yes, I believe that the threshold for using traumatic weapons in the minds of the mass of citizens has been lowered, and that full-fledged firearms will be used in “inappropriate” cases much less often - because now, in the perception of many, a shot from a traumatic weapon is no more dangerous than a blow with a fist. This perception is largely incorrect, but it is there.

With regard to a normal pistol, no one will have confidence in its comparative safety, and, as a result, the temptation, for example, to shoot an opponent in the leg “for educational purposes” will also not arise, because the result is guaranteed to be serious and entail serious consequences for both parties to the incident.

Anatoly

[08.02 16:32] And one more question: Or maybe, well, this traumatist? If the criminal fled after being shot from a trauma weapon, no examination will be able to determine the barrel from which the shot was fired (the rubber bullet is literally torn to shreds while still in the barrel). And for short barrels there are quite reliable methods (bullet and cartridge case, for example). So it would be much more reasonable to allow short-barreled guns and ban traumatic weapons instead of “tightening control over...” “playing around with a registered short-barreled gun” will cost you more. Your opinion?

I agree with your opinion.

Gunsmith

[08.02 12:50] Good afternoon, Maxim!

Question. Shouldn't traumatic weapons be banned altogether? If we take statistics, then a very large number of Russian citizens have begun to throw up their guns like cowboys. In your opinion, is this good? After all, they shoot each other even in stores between boxes of champagne in the week before New Year's? Are you a supporter of “give traumatic weapons” or “ban them”? Don’t you think that the problem of using traumatic weapons, limiting their use, issuing them, etc., etc., is only the technical side of the issue? After all, the state admits its complete impotence again and again in that it cannot protect citizens? Why instill in a person love for his neighbor from school, if it is “cheaper” and more practical to give everyone a “gun”?

Basil

[08.02 13:47] Hello!

From time to time there are reports in the press that someone was killed by a shot from a traumatism. At close range, injury can kill, but from a distance of 3 meters or more, it is difficult to get hit in an extreme situation. Wouldn't it be wiser to ban such inconvenient and ineffective weapons altogether?

The state has long “signed up for impotence”, enshrining in the Constitution and laws the right of citizens to protect their lives and health from criminal attacks, rather than requiring them to wait for the police to arrive. Cultivating total love for one's neighbor and love of peace is a good thing, but in our reality it is not feasible. Crime was, is and, alas, will not disappear in the foreseeable future. Of course, you can rely on the state, but it will not physically be able to assign a personal policeman to everyone. Summary - people must have effective means of SELF-defense. A pistol is one such weapon.

Oleg

[08.02 14:07] The very name of the subject of discussion says that this is a weapon. Do you think any weapon, if permitted, should not be strictly registered as a military weapon?

And it is strictly registered, as stated in the law “On Weapons”. The President was misled about the circulation of traumatic weapons. Who and why - I, alas, don’t know.

Scout

[08.02 10:40] When will we sell normal firearms, as they do in the USA? Or will we always be content with “farts”? Or in Russia you can’t put guns in people’s hands - they will shoot officials, policemen and each other? What do you think?

Alas, I cannot answer the question “when”. I would like it to be sooner rather than later. We can give weapons into the hands of Russian citizens in exactly the same way as any other - the same Moldovans, Estonians, Czechs, Finns and a huge number of people around the world.

Eroshevsky Vadim

[08.02 12:38] Hello Maxim! I have a few questions for you.

1) Recently, President D. Medvedev ordered an urgent tightening of methods for controlling and regulating the circulation of traumatic weapons. How do you think this tightening will be expressed? Are the existing rules and laws on the circulation of traumatic weapons not enough?

2) How do you feel about the very idea of ​​traumatic weapons? Don't you think that traumatic weapons, on the contrary, are reducing the weapons culture of the country's citizens? After all, traumatic weapons are often treated irresponsibly, like a harmless toy.

3) What do you think about the possible constitutional enshrinement of the right of Russian citizens to acquire, concealed carry and possible use for self-defense of short-barreled rifled weapons (pistols)? What will this lead to in our country?

4) How much more time do you think our wise legislators will need to learn to trust their own people and give their own people the right to effective self-defense, including with a pistol?

5) What traumatic and smooth-bore weapons would you recommend to people personally for self-defense? So that it is of high quality and does not fail at the most necessary moment. Well, of course, the price should be adequate.

6) Where do you think we should start (what needs to be changed in the laws, in the LRO system) if they decide to legalize pistols in Russia?

Thank you for your attention.

4-6. I don’t presume to judge how long it is. Purely technically, all amendments to the current legislation can be carried out in six months, a maximum of a year.

Advising specific samples may be considered advertising. Personally, I carry the Osa traumatic pistol.

The provisions of the law “On Weapons” and law enforcement practice in cases of self-defense need to be changed. Changes in the structure of the LRO, if necessary, are very minor.

Boris

[08.02 10:41] Hello Maxim. I have a question.

Is it possible in our country to use the experience of Great Britain and completely abandon any weapons in society, leaving them only for licensed hunters and law enforcement agencies, or should we use the American (free circulation) about which there is active debate in society.

Vasya the skeptic

[08.02 14:02] Shouldn’t we ban all weapons altogether? Then there will be less violence.

The experience of Great Britain shows that with the gradual disarmament of law-abiding citizens over the past 100 years, violent crime is on the rise. And the London bobbies, who until recently walked around only with a whistle and a baton, now wear bulletproof vests and carry German machine guns.

Gunsmith

[08.02 12:57] Maxim, one more question. Recently, society was agitated by the fact that in one game Russians were shot at an airport according to the plot of the game. Don't you think that allowing any kind of weapon that can be used for attack, and in some cases for defense, will only complete the formation of a social model of behavior? After all, for example, a young man played (remember Evsyukov), he went crazy, and the state gives him the opportunity to get a pistol and, thus, a creature with a pistol goes out into the street and the image of “justice” imposed by the game is spinning in his head . Have you ever considered this aspect? Don’t you think that all the ideas about the legalization of military weapons, already legalized traumatic weapons, are ideas planted from outside, or learned by us “by example”?

It does not seem. Many types of weapons, primarily hunting ones, were never banned in Russia - neither under the Tsar, nor under the Bolsheviks, nor now. At the same time, in terms of lethality, grandfather’s double-barreled shotgun will surpass the Makarov pistol many times over. And nothing - they didn’t shoot at our airports.

And the state willingly issues weapons to young people and in huge quantities - in the same army and the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Well, if you consider the idea of ​​​​actively protecting your life and health from criminal violent attacks as an “idea planted from the outside” - I have nothing to say here.

Vladimir Vladimirovich

[08.02 11:58] Maxim, good afternoon! Recently, cases of murders using purely defensive - traumatic weapons - have become more frequent. At the same time, for its intended purpose, it is used extremely rarely (if used at all) as a weapon of self-defense. At the same time, reviews like “lately my pistol has ceased to satisfy me in terms of power, I bought myself a new one, more powerful” are not uncommon on various “gun” websites. One gets the impression that trauma, short-barreled pneumatics, etc. Only unbalanced, “concerned”, extremists, radicals, etc. buy. people who are not right in the head.

In your opinion, do short-barreled guns and trauma in our realities really become more of a fetish and a means of suppressing complexes, rather than a weapon of self-defense?

There are practically no purely defensive weapons. Any weapon can be used as a means of attack. Moreover, in most countries, traumatic weapons are used by the police as “offensive” weapons when dispersing riots or detaining criminals.

They actually use weapons for self-defense relatively rarely - but one can say that cars with ABS and airbags are bought by people who are unbalanced and “concerned” - after all, in reality these means are used very rarely, and if you’re lucky, then never at all.

V.V.,

[08.02 12:07] Maxim, tell me, don’t you personally worry about the active concern about gun ownership expressed by various kinds of anarchists, radicals, (neo)fascists, democrats and simply “concerned” people?

Don’t you think that the problem of free circulation of weapons is somewhat far-fetched, since no one is seriously interested in it except for marginalized people and lobbyists-manufacturers?

Firstly, as a rule, only people who are completely ignorant of the topic talk about “free circulation”. In reality, we are talking about strict licensing, accounting and the like.

Secondly, it is much more profitable for marginalized people and criminals to use illegal weapons.

Well, thirdly, the problem of effective self-defense is by no means far-fetched; it worries a very significant number of completely normal ordinary people whom I regularly observe in gun stores in the city of St. Petersburg.

Michael

[08.02 17:00] Hello, Maxim! Do you think that the development of weapons infrastructure (accessible shooting ranges, an increase in the number of service centers, the consolidation of weapons stores) can affect the culture of using any type of weapon in Russia? Is the state ready to “invest” in this? After all, often unpleasant situations arise due to the fact that the owner of a pneumatic-trauma-firearm simply has nowhere to shoot at targets, so he shoots at the annoying neighbor’s dog, and then it’s not far from the neighbor himself..

Special thanks for your site!

Anatoly

[08.02 11:19] Maxim, don’t you think that it would be much wiser to direct efforts (and money) to create publicly accessible training centers, shooting ranges and shooting ranges? For those who want to shoot with their own gun, or choose a future personal gun for themselves, this will quickly pay for itself and bring in a stable income. And all kinds of prohibitions are a dead end. Reasonable control is needed, but nothing more.

The structure of shooting ranges definitely needs to be developed. At the same time, the state simply needs not to interfere with ordinary private business - now the creation of a commercial shooting range is a very complicated procedure, requiring a lot of approvals, licenses and the like.

Evgeniy Simrnov

[08.02 14:48] Hello, Maxim.

Thank you for your site.

I would like to know your opinion on preparing citizens to own “traumatic vehicles” as it applies to cars. Does it make sense, in your opinion, to introduce permission for the free sale of short-barreled weapons?

How do the authorities motivate the ban on the sale of short-barreled weapons?

Thank you in advance.

I think that organizing “advanced training” courses for owners of any weapons (both hunting and traumatic), like American courses for weapon owners, is an idea that is certainly necessary and, moreover, has good commercial potential.

Dmitriy

[08.02 14:28] Please tell us about your attitude towards the organization of civilian weapons owners VOVGO and its activities. Do you think the real goals of this organization correspond to the declared ones and is not VOVGO an attempt by the authorities to create the appearance of “popular support” for stricter gun control? Do you know of any other similar organizations?

I have a purely positive attitude towards this organization. I am not yet aware of other similar organizations in Russia.

Vyacheslav

[08.02 16:52] Hello, Maxim.

What forces, in your opinion, are currently influencing the state of the civilian weapons market in Russia? Are there organizations that protect the rights of citizens who own self-defense weapons (like the American NRA)? Are domestic weapons manufacturers interested in changing the existing legislative framework related to civilian weapons?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

The main forces shaping the civilian weapons market in Russia now are large distribution companies. Organizations like the NRA are just emerging; an example of such an organization is VOVGO, the All-Russian Society of Civilian Weapons Owners.

Large domestic arms manufacturers, alas, do not really know how to work with the civilian market and do not want to, because they are much more accustomed to multimillion-dollar government orders.

Timofey

[08.02 14:04] Maxim, good afternoon!

1. Please tell me, do you yourself carry “trauma”?

2. About what case would you say, “This is where a self-defense weapon would be very useful”?

3. Recently, cases have become more frequent when people are not allowed into one or another institution (more often in state institutions) with weapons: they say that this is “an order from the authorities.” Although the order of the authorities is not a normative legal act, you will not get through the “bull” “2*3”. And since you have an appointment with an official for this exact day and hour a month in advance, you have to go to the car and, contrary to all the laws that you promised to comply with, leave the gun in the glove compartment. The question is: You are a person who has extensive experience with weapons. What would you do in this situation? Would you like to advocate once and for all to explain to these very “bulls” that they do not have the right to carry out the illegal orders of their leadership? Or are you in favor of each organization being able to decide for itself whether to let people in with weapons or not?

Thank you!

1. Yes, I carry a barrelless Osa pistol.

2. There are a lot of such cases. My friends have been attacked on the street several times, in which a traumatic weapon could well have helped. It was precisely after such incidents that some became concerned about obtaining a license for self-defense weapons.

3. The issue of access with weapons to various organizations is quite complex and can be discussed for a long time. The current format, unfortunately, does not allow for this.

Rasul Rakhimov

[08.02 10:24] 1) what is the difference between a traumatic weapon and any hunting weapon?

2) Why do you need a traumatic weapon if you can easily join some hunting union and buy a hunting rifle. Thank you

According to our law, hunting weapons are long-barreled weapons (shotgun or rifle), and you cannot carry them for self-defense. Its main purpose is to kill the animal as quickly and reliably as possible, without unnecessary suffering.

Traumatic weapons - compact, suitable for carrying. His main task is not to kill, but to stop the attack. Another thing is that in order to effectively stop a number of attacks, the injury inflicted on the criminal must really be serious, otherwise self-defense will be ineffective.

M. Glimmer

[08.02 12:25] Hello, Maxim.

What is your opinion,

1) Is it necessary to additionally classify weapons as “traumatic”, or is the existing “gas” weapon (with the ability to fire rubber bullets) sufficient?

2) Do you consider it necessary to allow the circulation of short-barreled firearms? What do you think prevents this?

3) What changes would you personally recommend to make to the legislation regulating the circulation of weapons (briefly, the main points) if you were given such an opportunity?

Thank you!

1 and 2: I think that we need to gradually move from ineffective traumatic and gas self-defense weapons to full-fledged civilian rifled short-barreled weapons. I already explained why above.

3. In addition to the actual introduction of the concept of “civilian rifled short-barreled weapons” (by analogy with hunting rifled weapons, that is, with the obligatory periodic shooting of each barrel in the bullet case), I would introduce mandatory short courses for obtaining a license to carry weapons.