aaus-list @ ukrainianstudies.org -- [aaus-list] Armed and Safe?..

[Kostyantyn Mykhailychenko <kostya@uncpd.kiev.ua> (by way of RobertDeLossa)]

[Reproduced with the permission of the UCIPR--RDL]


Research Update. Vol. 15, Ð 2/562, 02 February 2009

       Armed and Safe?..

       By Ilona Bilan, Head, Democracy Advocacy Group, UCIPR

       In late 2008, the Ministry of Interior of 
Ukraine made a decision to let Ukrainian citizens
freely purchase self-defense (traumatic action) 
pistols. This was announced live on the 5th
Channel by Minister of Interior Yuri Lutsenko. 
According to him, it was decided to prepare
documents and allow everyone without exception, 
of course save drug- and alcohol-addict
persons, to freely buy pistols of traumatic 
action. The Minister said such pistols cannot 
kill but
can protect a person against an attack of 
criminals at a 5-meter distance. This issue was 
to be
legally solved this January. Though, it might 
come into force not earlier than February because
of the need to agree the respective document with 
the Ministry of Justice and some other
agencies. Deputy Minister of Interior O. 
Savchenko deems permissions given to citizens for
purchasing traumatic action weapons will not 
deteriorate the criminal situation in the 
country. He
pointed out the Ministry of Interior actually 
completed the elaboration of a respective 
legislative
act granting citizens the right to buy traumatic 
action weapons. Former First Deputy Minister of
Interior M. Kornienko is also positive about 
intentions of Mr. Lutsenko. He is sure the country
direly needs the approval and enactment of the 
law "On Weapons" that provides for granting
Ukrainian citizens the permission to freely buy 
not only traumatic action weapons but also
firearms.

       The news aroused heated debates on the part 
of both advocates and opponents of this
idea. Advocates of the free possession of weapons 
by citizens are convinced that equipping
citizens with traumatic action pistols will 
thereby ensure their constitutional right to self-
defense guaranteed by Article 27 of the Basic Law 
("everyone has the right to protect his or
her life and health, the lives and health of 
other persons against unlawful encroachments")
and Article 36 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine 
("the use of weapons or other means or
things for protection against an attack of an 
armed person or an attack of a group of
persons, and also to avert an unlawful violent 
intrusion upon a dwelling place or other
premises, shall not be treated as the excess of 
necessary defense and shall not entail
criminal liability"). Hence, the exercise of this 
constitutional rule provides for a possibility of
using weapons.

       Standing for the constitutional right to 
self-defense, advocators argue their position also
by the fact that the state cannot ensure proper 
safety of its citizens. Conversely, the 
possession of
weapons could serve as an effective means of 
self-defense and a deterrent for criminals, since 
in
most cases they are armed, whereas potential victims are defenseless.

       Another argument for the free circulation 
of weapons is that the license procedure and
permission for weapon discipline persons and 
prevent them from unskilled and careless handling
of weapons. Attention is paid to the fact that 
officially registered weapon is not used for 
intended
crimes, since not everyone will dare to commit an 
intended crime with legally registered weapon
(various examinations will allow immediately 
establish an identity of its owner).

       Opponents to the idea of the free 
circulation of arms are convinced that the 
prohibition of
this right is a typical for totalitarian regimes 
characterized by the availability of weapons for
political elites parallel to its total 
prohibition for average citizens. So, as Ukraine 
strives to be a
democratic state, it must get rid of traditions 
inherent from the former USSR and accommodate
itself to new social relations.

       Yet another aspect that is believed very 
important for the citizen right to the free
possession of weapons is that this will help to 
stabilize the civil order and to reduce the number
of crimes against persons and property. An 
argument in favor of the free circulation of 
weapons
is data, according to which in countries where 
the sale of weapons is legal, the level of crime 
is
much lower compared to those where it is 
prohibited. An illustrative example is the US 
where
the number of crimes linked to violence, robbery 
and homicides is much lower as compared to
states where this civil right is restricted. 
Besides, statistics says people die from 
incidents,
illnesses and traffic accidents much more often 
than from armed crimes and the majority of
household crimes are committed with knives, axes and other means at hand.

       Notwithstanding convincing arguments of 
advocates of weapons legalization,
opponents cite other statistical data. For 
instance, in the US where citizens of 32 out of 50
states have the right to bear weapon, its owners 
commit family murders 20 times more often than
criminals; over one thousand teenagers annually 
become victims of armed offenders; and
firearms are most often used by suicides.

       It is doubtful that the possession of 
weapon disciplines a person, since it could be 
used
not for self-defense. It is impossible to rule 
out a situation, when a person might 
illegitimately
use weapons he/she has in a quarrel. 
Specifically, last July in Simferopol, a Mercedes 
driver
started firing from a pneumatic pistol at labors, 
who were gluing advertisement, because their
truck blocked the road. In late 2007 in Kyiv, a 
conflict between a pedestrian and a Mazda driver
ended in the use of a pneumatic pistol by the 
latter as a final argument. A couple of days 
later, a
pedestrian, who reproved a driver for the 
violation of traffic rules, was killed from a 
traumatic
action pistol. Furthermore, Ukrainian society 
lacks culture of weapons handling as such. Just
think about recent incidents with firing at 
passersby in different districts of Kyiv and 
wounding
of children from parents' weapons as a result of 
its improper storage and handling.

       These are incidents with the use of 
pneumatic and traumatic weapons only, which
theoretically cannot kill a person because their 
damage effect is too low. Tests prove that a 
bullet
speed from a pistol of traumatic action is 200 
meters per second, which is 1/3 less than that of 
a
smooth-bore pistol. According to Executive 
Director of the National Association of Armorers 
V.
Mikhaliov, more powerful bullets could be 
produced for the mass sale because given such 
speed,
it is not a weapon but a child's play like a water pistol.

       Yet, facts tell another story. According to 
experts, more powerful bullets could be used
for smooth-bore pistols thereby increasing the 
bullet speed up to 500-600 meters per second,
which is dangerous for human health. Pneumatic 
weapons also differ in bullet speed and
diameter. A shot made from a rifle, whose bullets 
have a speed of 360 meters per second could
seriously mutilate and even kill a person. 
Pistols of traumatic action can be purchased only 
with
the militia permission for special categories of 
citizens, whereas pneumatic arms do not require
the permission at all. Criminals do not need the 
permission for weapons as they are well-armed
without it. And to purchase even the cheapest 
pistol (prices are within the limits of UAH 500-
5,000) is more than a common citizen can afford.

       It is also na?ve to assume the possession 
of weapons by citizens will guarantee their
personal security and will give them equal 
chances with criminals. First, this will never 
stop
criminals and, in some cases, will even provoke 
them to more aggressive actions, which could
result in their taking a victim's weapon and 
using it against a victim. Second, in extreme
situations when criminals attack suddenly, 
weapons might not help as an immediate reaction is
needed. And a victim simply will not have enough 
time to find a pistol and make it ready for
firing because it is difficult to imagine, say, a 
woman, who bears a pistol in a holster, not in a
bag.. To respond immediately, it is necessary to 
have certain skills and be able to handle
weapons automatically. Third, to fire at beer 
cans is one matter and another matter is to shoot 
at
a human being. To shoot somebody without 
hesitation, one needs to be able to fire and be
psychologically ready for this.

       Disputes on this issue could be endless. 
However, one thing is evident. Today, the
circulation of weapons in Ukraine is regulated by 
the August 28, 1998 instruction of the Ministry
of Interior No. 622 on the procedure for the 
production, purchase, storage, registration,
transportation and use of fire-, pneumatic and 
cold arms, Ukraine-made devices designed for
shooting rubber or analogous non-lethal bullets 
and ammunition for weapons and explosives.
Provisions of the Instruction are to be applied 
to all executive authorities, local 
self-government
bodies, enterprises and organizations, 
irrespective of their form of ownership, as well 
as to
citizens of Ukraine and stateless persons. 
Omitting the details that relate to different 
institutions
and agencies, below the author will consider 
issues concerning rights of common citizens
regulated by the Instruction.

       Under the document, Ukrainian citizens have 
the right to purchase smooth-bore shotguns,
rifled or combined hunting weapons, gas pistols 
and revolvers, pneumatic and cold arms. Some
categories of citizens have the right to buy 
Ukraine-made devices designed for shooting rubber
or analogous non-lethal bullets. Yet, 
notwithstanding that only a few people have the 
right to
possess traumatic weapon, many people own it in fact.

       Hence, it has to be stated that now, one of 
the most essential social areas linked to the
circulation of weapons in Ukraine is regulated by 
the only legislative act, the said Instruction 
that
is an internal document of the Ministry of 
Interior. Despite numerous attempts to legitimate 
the
circulation of weapon in the country and to 
create effective mechanisms of heavy 
responsibility
for its illegal use, Ukraine unfortunately lacks 
a uniform law that must serve as an obstacle to 
the
use of weapon as a main argument in sorting out 
various problems. It is necessary to pass a clear
law on weapons, which would regulate rules of 
weapons handling, to provide for heavy
responsibility for crimes related to weapons and 
ammunition stealing and to develop a single
government program, which would allow 
comprehensively solve all issues concerning the
circulation of weapon in Ukraine and its illegal 
sale. Nevertheless, a version of the bill "On the
Circulation of Civilian Weapons" was recalled 
from consideration in the Verkhovna Rada on
November 23, 2007, while a new draft law "On 
Weapons" was submitted to parliament on
September 2, 2008.