Andrey Sokolov - Economics and human rights

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. It’s 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)

Let’s 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, that’s 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 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.

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.

Let’s 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.

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 country’s 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 author’s 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 let’s 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.