Misunderstandings generate confusion and we begin by saying that those who work as journalists have a clear duty not to generate dangerous misunderstandings. On the other hand, those who read the articles have the duty to do it in a critical sense, but above all to see things as a whole, without dwelling on details that are convenient to attack. This is what happened with the piece dedicated to self-defense for which the writer (holder of firearms and frequenter of private polygons directed by qualified personnel) must make some clarifications referred to by the so-called 477 Directive Committee. Firstly, I would like to underline how it considers it essential for everyone to be able to defend with the means that he considers appropriate private land and in the article (more) there is no mention of any condemnation against those who do, indeed. The thing that we wanted to underline is that this race for the legitimacy of defense arises for decades in which the powers in charge have always favored those who have offended and not those who have defended themselves (this is written, I repeat). The injustices committed against those who used a weapon to defend themselves are countless, this does not mean that the judiciary has the duty to interfere between the aggressor and attacked as a last resort that determines whether the defense was exaggerated against the offense.
The crux of the article was this, empowering firearm holders on this point, stating that the law on self-defense is not a "free all" against those who carry a weapon to act against a possible aggressor. Also because, let's not forget, there is no code that protects your conscience in case someone's life is taken away.
The article is not an indictment against weapons (even this is well specified) or even a ferocious criticism of the procedures for issuing the firearms. The adjective "farcical" reflects only the type of visit conducted with respect to the license that is issued: the medical examiner - who seriously does his job, but above all he does what the law requires - should broaden his skills and the required exams they should perhaps be more accurate. Why not introduce psychological tests or toxicological examinations for firearm applicants? I do not think it is a bestiality to expect it.
If the writer has mistaken definitions of the type of weapons he did not to attract any opponents, he did it wrongly; nevertheless, these are subtleties for which we ask, however, venia. Something to say about accidents, however, there is, in the sense that they happen, especially in the "hunting", but also in polygons. Even in this case, however, the article is not an indictment of weapons. The weapon in itself is dangerous if handled without caution and - reasoned with full knowledge of the facts - it is possible to watch ungrateful performances on inappropriate handling of guns or shots causally left (luckily without consequences). In the same way, denying the possibility of accidents (especially in the art of hunting) does not correspond to the truth. The climate around this legislative point is also incandescent because, as we have already shown, they have a very poisoned tooth against those who, for some time, have pointed them out as "death-bearers" demons. Far from the headline demonize a category like the gunsmith who was not even the subject of what was published.
Committees and shooters can stay with the mind in peace, nobody is against them, let alone this magazine that has at heart especially people in uniform that the weapons must use them for trade and do it well, on behalf and to protect the State and its citizens. Defend is a right of everyone, everyone in his house is master (not above the intended law), but what must be clear is that in the case of transgression or misuse of weapons, this should not have a priori reason.
At the base of all this there is a request for a stronger State, with the Order's Forces prepared to do their duty to the end, without fear of offending or exceeding the defense, especially when it comes to protecting citizens and fight crime. They are the first bulwark against robberies and criminals; agree they can not be everywhere, but many times we have witnessed their impotence because of laws and quibbles that - even in their case - were more on the side of the delinquent. For the ordinary citizen who defends his property there must be major controls, that's all. This does not prevent the person from buying 100 guns and as many rifles, only that it worries a lot the reaction caused by what was argued in the previous article.
It is called "excess defense" and is the same reason that leads an individual, or a group of people, to ask that the free expression be censored only because seen as a threat by those who think differently.
(photo: web)
