Matteo Salvini is on the right track - of course - to keep the promises made to his electors before the vote. A fierce fight against immigration (always in its own way) and now a quick approval of the law for self-defense. What we wonder is if the Italians really can suddenly turn into rugged, rugged Texans and keep rifles, pistols and ammunition in their homes in order to protect their "ranch". In light of what is coming out in the press, the first problem seems to be the compromise signed between the Minister of the Interior and the arms lobby that shocked a bit 'all newspapers: but it was really thought that a similar law did not include a pact with these manufacturers?
In spite of many, it is easy to think of the opposite, Italy is one of the countries where weapons are made and also of excellent quality. We are not talking only about naval armaments, airplanes or tracks, but above all individual weapons. The market is flourishing and although the armories complain about the crisis we wonder why the windows are always full of machine guns of every kind. Not to mention the world of second-hand goods and the private exchange that takes place between the shooters on Sundays who are indulging in the purchase of weapons last model to fire on jars. What's wrong with you? Nobody; everyone is free to spend his free time as he wants or to wear the clothes of whoever he / she likes, the snag it arises, however, when a passion (never harmless, seen accidents) can turn into a potential threat to others.
Let's specify, it is not the law of Salvini on self-defense that will stop the thefts in homes, in the same way it is wrong to demonize the weapons as such because these are inanimate pieces of iron that need a human being to work. What is most troubling is the feeling of "concession" which will feel invested thousands of citizens eager to aim a gun on someone, perhaps targeting some immigrant who was too close to the wall of their home. This is the most intricate knot since it may, in fact, appear that behind the legitimate defense hotels a link with issues related to immigration. Indeed, the equation is simple: more immigrants, more crimes, more weapons to defend themselves, does not make a fold.
The second point concerns the owners of guns and rifles, but for this you need a brief summary on the process that leads to take the license for the firearms. The holders of the first "step" to obtain the yellow card are the TSN or National Target who, after a course of a few hours on the handling of weapons and a test (easily surmountable) certify (in a completely random) that the shooter is ready not to direct the sprint to the bystanders. Combined with this there are health checks. Apart from an anamnestic certificate issued by your doctor and a "farcical" visit conducted by a medical examiner (both with an outlay of money), the question revolves around the payment of stamps and the presentation of the application to the police headquarters. Anyone who has no criminal record and comes from a good family can assure permission to bring a weapon solely for hunting or sports use: well understood, for personal defense (for now) the lists are inaccessible or limited to a few users. There is no doubt that this process does not attest to anything about the qualities of those who will have to carry the weapon and does not confer powers of vision on what then with that weapon can be done.
At this point the word passes to private polygons where the shooters really test their skills as gunslingers with their burnished irons; within these structures there are more or less capable instructors who give their technical imprinting to whoever has to hold a weapon. The polygon remains the best and most suitable place for the handling of weapons, especially if directed by competent personnel who have experience behind them, perhaps in the military field. Likewise there are several serious schools where they prepare for the use of weapons in various sports competitions with gun, sniper rifle or clay pigeon shooting. Once the training session is over, the shooter puts his weapon in the case and takes it home where it is stored in special armored cabinets according to the law. The legitimate defense, however, offers the opportunity to hold - so to speak - the weapon under the pillow and - this is sure - many already do.
The polygon and its instructors, however competent they may be, can not teach or predict how an individual reacts if challenged in the middle of the night by a hostile presence. In the first place, nobody has the ability to assess the threat he faces, mostly in the dark, unless he is highly trained and among the various "Sunday's Warriors" no one is. There are the alleged "courses for housing defense" whose value is useful for understanding the legal limits within which to act in the home, but unrealistic in teaching the dynamics of the assessment and reaction of a danger.
The general concern - above all shouted from the opposition desks - hypothesizes a dystopian future similar to the saga of "The Purge" where a terrifying "night of judgment", legalized by the founding fathers, authorized, in a single night of the year, to kill someone as an act of purification. Let's leave something similar to fantasy, even if it's all very American!
More realistically it is desirable that the State does not delegate to its citizens in matters of defense or public order, but rather guarantees certainties of punishment, severe punishment and a clear stance towards those who have suffered an offense. That's why no law is needed, it's just common sense. Beating on the front page the jeweler condemned because he fired the robber amplifies the desire to become "Giustizieri della notte" in spite of the laws of the state; to condemn a family father to compensate a criminal because he is beaten while trying to steal is a boomerang that turns right against those who crave an unarmed society.
It is necessary to apply the law rather than to corroborate the concept of "I can shoot you when I want" and rely on a judiciary that is primarily on the side of the victim, especially if disarmed. On balance is not what the Salvini law provides? Not just because at one point in the text it invites "to protect primarily the right of citizens who are victims of crime to not be prosecuted and damaged (even economically) by the State and their own aggressors". That is, a law of the state preserves the citizen from possible consequences of his gesture even against the state itself? This is really meritorious to be included in some fantapolitica novel.
Is the citizen in his house above the law? If that were the case then I would suggest reintroducing the practice of the duel to resolve personal disputes, so as not to crowd the courtrooms.
(photo: web / Arma dei Carabinieri)
