What is the most advanced revolver without permission?

Hello, what is the most advanced legal firearm for which a permit is not required you would use for self-defense against bandits who want to shoot you from 20 meters, so you must have a firearm to defend?
Does this require a license. Black Powder Revolvers Pietta 1851 Colt Navy US Marschal Stainless cal. 44 - YAUM44?

thomson2015 wrote:

Does this require a license. Black Powder Revolvers Pietta 1851 Colt Navy US Marschal Stainless cal. 44 - YAUM44?

It does not require, but ... The regulations in Poland are so well designed that if you buy a revolver, caps, i.e. primers, wads and bullets (bullets or slugs), without a permit and legally, to buy black powder legally, you must have a permit with Police firearms. The circle closes

Krzysztof Kamienski wrote:

thomson2015 wrote:

Does this require a license. Black Powder Revolvers Pietta 1851 Colt Navy US Marschal Stainless cal. 44 - YAUM44?

to buy black powder legally, you must have a firearms permit from the Police.

Not true, a European Weapon Charter is enough to buy gunpowder. 1 application, 1 photo, 1 fee and you can arrange everything with the help of the Polish Post.
I will not comment on the use of black powder weapons to defend against "bandits".
Sorry, buddy, but ask first, read, feel. Then get a permit for a personal protection weapon if you really feel so threatened.

thomson2015 wrote:

Hello, what is the most advanced legal firearm for which a permit is not required you would use for self-defense against bandits who want to shoot you from 20 meters, so you must have a firearm to defend?
Does this require a license. Black Powder Revolvers Pietta 1851 Colt Navy US Marschal Stainless cal. 44 - YAUM44?

Using black powder weapons to defend against bandits is as effective as fly traps.
This is because such weapons MUST NOT be stored or transported loaded, and must ONLY be used at a licensed shooting range.

Even if it were allowed, black powder is such an unpleasant medium that it tends not to work when "stored" in a weapon for a long time. What is quite common in our climate. Therefore, carrying it with you is doomed to failure.

Finally, no bandit attacks a victim from 20 meters. Only usually it is only 4-5 meters. And from this distance, before you take out and prepare the black powder revolver (for combined ammunition as well) - the bandit loads 3 "bombs" in the mouth and 4 "scythes" under your ribs.
So, true self-defense with weapons is, as a rule, doomed to fail and only succeeds in movies.
Anyway, they teach it at every professional self-defense course.
1 - Spier .....
2 - If 1 fails, return the wallet and then apply the first point.

If you really feel threatened - get a license for a weapon for personal defense and buy a real weapon.
But you really get nothing to do with any legal, but without permission, substitute for weapons. Pepper spray (it has disadvantages) or a stun gun will work best. But these are also half measures.

If you would go to a self-defense course, a good instructor teaches you at the very beginning that fighting an attacker, regardless of the result, is a failure in self-defense. Because self-defense is about avoiding a clash.
And in combat, when you are attacked, you will ALWAYS be in a worse position, regardless of technical gadgets.
And even if you do, you'll spend the next few years meeting with the prosecutor and trying to prove that you weren't the thug.

Therefore, it is better to break out such ideas once and for all.

Maybe at the end ... Taser approved for use without permission or finally a stun gun ... Has quite a strong psychological effect, or a revolver for 10mm rubber bullets, i.e. Zoraki - hitting the attacker in the so-called "eggs" is quite effective (depends of course on the attacker - drugged, drunk, big or small ).

And if you miss ...
Or you hit hardly?
What do you think will be the next point of the day for such a striker?
According to me - he would put such a toy in ...

It was a joke As electronics engineers, we should focus on the short-range stun gun and the TASER on the larger one. Well, quite an expensive gadget. Greetings.

Krzysztof Kamienski wrote:

it is to purchase black powder legally

You don't need to. You just need to get a weapon card. Besides, anyone can do it. Saltpeter, sulfur and coal.
You can't protect yourself from it. If the dust catches moisture, you won't ignite it.

thomson2015 wrote:

for self-defense against bandits who want to shoot you from 20 meters so you must have firearms to defend?

I would go to the police and apply for a firearms license. And by the way, to protect the police, since there is a real threat to life.

thomson2015 wrote:

shoot from 20 meters

From such a distance, to a moving target with a pistol?

@K-rzysztof Kamienski

Zoraki is a bit suspicious. In the sense that it may cause problems, i.e. its legality is not certain because opinions on this issue are divided.

Madrik wrote:

This is because such weapons MUST NOT be stored or transported loaded, and must ONLY be used at a licensed shooting range.

I am asking for a legal basis, but specifically for black powder weapons, and not for points in the act stating what kind of weapon to which license can be transferred.
I am asking because I was very interested in the subject and in my opinion the legal basis does not exist. We can have a black powder revolver loaded in a belt holster and no one has the right to forbid us to do so. Well, we can still have a set of drums, also loaded for quick reload.
Not only that, the holder of a sports firearm permit can carry it loaded without a cartridge in the chamber. This was introduced due to the fact that often an "athlete" goes to a competition with several weapons with him. If he has a loaded pistol, it is easier for him to defend himself against loss.

telecaster1951 wrote:

You don't need to. You just need to get a weapon card. Besides, anyone can do it. Saltpeter, sulfur and coal.

There is no sale ban anywhere in the act. It is forbidden to have it, but only if we do not have a gun with black powder as a throwing charge. There is no need to register black powder weapons.
From unofficial information - shops often do not sell gunpowder anyway, mainly due to the fear of revoking the concession, although there are also some where the seller buys on his "securities" and you just get it as a gift. Importing from the Czech Republic is 100% legal and popular.

atom1477 wrote:

But he (everyone) is not necessarily allowed.

As above.

In my opinion, the smoothbore shotgun is the most useful for home defense. Let's say 7 rounds in a magazine, two with gums, two with salt, and then a pellet or slug, but we want to eliminate a potential subversive unit, and not just scare it away.

pietryna wrote:

Not only that, the holder of a sports firearm permit can carry it loaded without a cartridge in the chamber. This was introduced due to the fact that often an "athlete" goes to a competition with several weapons with him. If he has a loaded pistol, it is easier for him to defend himself against loss.

You're confusing the concepts. Carrying a weapon is each time it is moved in an unloaded state, i.e. empty magazine and no cartridge in the chamber.
If you have a full magazine attached, regardless of whether the cartridge is in the chamber or not, it is carrying it. And now, firearms license holders can carry firearms for personal protection. For those who have a sports license, this is made possible by the unfortunate wording in the Weapons and Ammunition Act at the moment, and has nothing to do with the athlete's being able to defend himself and his property.
Anyway, I refer you to the forum bron.iweb.pl - this topic has been rolled over there many times, the conclusions are clear. The second, reliable source of information is the website of Trybun.org.pl, attorney Andrzej Turczyn.

There is also the question of WEARING a separate loading weapon from the purely practical side. At all shooting ranges where I go, if you put on your caps (i.e. complete the loading procedure) in a place other than at the shooting position, with the barrel pointing towards the bullet trap, the shooting will simply throw you out of the position after a few reminders, and that's it.
In most cases, black dusters do not have any sensible fuses, therefore no shooter will be held responsible for the shooter's stupidity.

I will not argue about why an "athlete" can carry a gun.

Interpretation on black powder weapons
http://derepublica.blox.pl/2013/04/Quod-lege-non-prohibitum-licitum-est.html
I do not know what this article is. 51. In the Penal Code it is repealed, in the Code of Petty Offenses it has 3 paragraphs, with no sub-items.
Unless point 4 and 7 of the Act on weapons and ammunition, and the above applies to disturbing order under the influence of alcohol.

Madrik wrote:

1 - Spier .....
2 - If 1 fails, return the wallet and then apply the first point.

These are, unfortunately, the consequences of the lack of universal access to weapons. In normal times
1. Shoot the bandit.

@pietryna
After all, this is where the problem lies: the rules are unclear and can be interpreted as they please (read if you don't like them).

As with this gunpowder, there is a rule that forbids, on the one hand, and the other that allows you to purchase and possess ammunition for legally owned weapons.
And it would suffice that where it writes from the dust it is forbidden to write except for CP or except for applications ... and that there should be clarity. Anyway, black powder is something you can simply forgive yourself, much better things can be done in a simpler way at home.

The fact that he does not write anywhere that it is allowed / forbidden to run with a black trench coat is also a problem because someone can always refer to other regulations.

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogia_%28metoda_stosowania_prawa%29

It is also a technical problem, black powder is hygroscopic.

A similar problem is with zoraki. There is the initiating charge itself. And the problem is that initiating charge is a separate category of charge, so it is not a propellant according to all the literature. However, someone can always say no, but it throws.

As for the paragraphs, check what text was in force in 2013 and if there were any amendments.

As for black gunpowder weapons, it seems to me that the Wild West has mythologized terribly, especially in terms of the revolver, the Wild West itself is also strongly mythologized.

supermach wrote:

These are, unfortunately, the consequences of the lack of universal access to weapons. In normal times
1. Shoot the bandit.

Believe me - you won't make it if the bandit knows his job even a little bit.
Only in the movies it looks like a gang surrounds you, 30 meters away, they show knives or other tools and demand cash, and it takes so long that you could carve a kalash from wood. And in the film the hero pulls out a gun and either everyone shits with fear or he kills everyone in half a second.
In normal life, the Bandit will pass right next to you, unexpectedly put a knife in your gut, or caress you with a stun gun, and then steal from you.
The bandit is also not stupid and does not like risk. And even if he demands cash, he'll probably have a gun himself, and it's pointed at you.

Professional tests, carried out with the use of policemen or commandos with weapons, have proven that less than 6 meters from the distance, in the event of a sudden attack and even if you immediately reach for the weapon - the shooter has no chance. Drawing a gun, unlocking it, then aiming a moving target and shooting - it takes too much time, even for an experienced shooter. There are still videos of such trainings on YT. It is surprising how poor the police are in the event of a surprise attack.

That is why the police, e.g. the American police, during the interventions, keep a fairly large distance from the suspect. Even several meters. They also want to live and are allowed to shoot them in self-defense.

pietryna wrote:

I am asking for a legal basis, but specifically for black powder weapons, and not for points in the act stating what kind of weapon to which license can be transferred.

Article 45 of the Act on weapons and ammunition:

Quote:

Art. 45. Firearms and other weapons capable of hitting targets at a distance may be used for training and sports purposes. only at shooting ranges .

Black powder weapons are available without a gun permit, but are STILL firearms, capable of damaging targets at a distance. The absence of a permit requirement does not change the definition of a weapon.

Quote:

Art. 32. 1. Weapons and ammunition should be stored and carried in such a way that they cannot be accessed by unauthorized persons.

By carrying a gun on you, someone can take it from you, or you can lose it. And it's still a weapon.

Quote:

Art. 35. 1. Transporting weapons and ammunition by public transport, subject to sec. 2 is acceptable
taking the necessary precautions, provided the weapons and ammunition are secured in such a way
preventing the risk of life, health or property.
2. The carriage of weapons and ammunition in passenger aircraft cabins by persons other than specifically designated for that purpose
authorized under separate regulations is prohibited.
3. The minister responsible for transport and the minister responsible for internal affairs shall determine, by way of a regulation,
detailed rules and conditions for transporting weapons and ammunition by public transport in a way that prevents them
risk to life, health or property.

Maybe you can wear? But on the bus or taxi - you are not allowed to get on. Because you still have a gun. A weapon loaded and ready to fire - poses a threat to life, health and property.

Art. 25 KK wrote:

§ 1. He does not commit a crime who, in self-defense, repels a direct, unlawful attack on any good protected by law.
§ 2. In the event of exceeding the limits of necessary defense, in particular, when the perpetrator used a method of defense disproportionate to the danger of an attack, the court may apply extraordinary leniency, and even withdraw from its imposition.
§ 3. Not subject to punishment, anyone who exceeds the limits of necessary defense under the influence of fear or agitation justified by the circumstances of the attack.

And it is interesting. Well, while carrying a gun - you were consciously prepared for the threat. So you couldn't be scared or agitated - because you expected it. Thus, you immediately block the court from its own acquittal in the event of an effective defense (read: you got a weed).
Since you are not subject to this article, immediately - You are punished. So the court has to hear your case, and that ends up differently.
In the light of the court - you were ready to attack with disproportionate means as a rule (we have few bandits with firearms).
In the light of the law, you have exceeded the necessary defense, and consciously, by making appropriate preparations.

Of course, that's a minor matter if your revolver won't fire, or it will fire when it's not necessary. Do you have any idea how whimsical black powder is?
Probably every CP shooter has ever fired it unconsciously, accidentally or at the wrong moment. And everyone missed a shot when they wanted to.
Do you know why CP revolvers were popular, not pistols?
Because you could move the chamber and try to fire again - you had 6 shots, not 6 shots.

I get you, because I think everyone had a phase of "being macho from the estate". But that's not the way to go. Carrying a weapon will neither save you nor help you in anything. And carrying a kilogram firecracker with you, which is pleasant in the long term - is not.
The sooner you understand this, the better.

And if you are afraid of a robbery, wear two wallets. One is almost empty - PLN 10-20.
And in case of a robbery, just give it back.
Life is more important than a few zlotys.
And fighting is only justified in defending your life. No fortune or money is worth it.

You just have to meet the guy twice and arrange a meeting with St. Peter, with a letter on his forehead.

Added after 1 [minutes]:

Buddy Tomson, the most formidable weapon is your brain.

The police and services use weapons based on the Act on Coercive Measures and Firearms. Probably also based on the law on the police. A policeman who uses a service weapon on a daily basis does not have a civilian license machine.

Madrik wrote:

Article 45 of the Act on weapons and ammunition:

Well, it's definitely not a legal basis when it comes to carrying a gun. The point only says that for training or sports purposes I can shoot at the shooting range, not in the field behind the house. What has already been explained above.

I was reviewing the consolidated text of the act in terms of the following slogans: carry, wear, nose. There is not a single paragraph prohibiting the carrying of a gun other than Art.10 point 2:

Quote:

It is forbidden to carry firearms held on the basis of a license for purposes
collectibles or commemorative items without the consent of the appropriate Police authority.

And a few generally speaking about the possibility of revoking the right to bear arms, etc.
As we basically separate 3 basic types of permission, that is:
1. Protection (property, personal, people)
2. Sports (shooting, training)
3. Collectible (commemorative, full collector's, reconstructions)
The first two categories entitle you to carry weapons, and in particular firearms, and the third does not exclude, but you have to ask and not get 99.99% because the collectors themselves say that it is hellishly difficult to get "full collectors" (i.e. for automatic ones) because the police are throwing logs at their feet as much as they can.

Madrik wrote:

By carrying a gun on you, someone can take it from you, or you can lose it. And it's still a weapon.

According to your interpretation, I can buy a gun and weld it in a cupboard, or even pour it in a reinforced foundation of the house and not say to anyone that it is there. And even that doesn't guarantee that an unauthorized person won't get it.
An argument to be debunked by a moderately smart parrot.

Madrik wrote:

A weapon loaded and ready to fire - poses a threat to life, health and property.

Again, your interpretation. A loaded firearm, without a cartridge in the chamber, protected by a factory fuse, is in a condition that does not pose a threat to life, health and property. Well, even deprotection is only one of the points on the way to a change of state. The first is overcharging and the last is targeting someone or something.
The same argument is to be disproved.

Madrik wrote:

And it is interesting. Well, while carrying a gun - you were consciously prepared for the threat.

Especially when I go to the shooting range. If you think that in the event of a robbery I would not be scared or agitated just because I decided to carry some of the ammunition in the magazine, then I am paranoid and should not get permission by the day.
In practice, there will always be a hearing. At most, the judgment will be issued on the basis of point 3 or 2 (in the event that we are talking about withdrawal).

Madrik wrote:

Thus, you immediately block the court from its own acquittal in the event of an effective defense (read: you got a weed).

I'm not closing. If I had somehow shot my attacker with a knifeso having witnesses who will not lie only on the grounds that one bandit had a firearm, I will be acquitted. Same if I got stabbed.
I know that it is unlikely (an effective defense, not an acquittal), although I saw the recordings of this research, and of course they were strongly directed in one direction, i.e. the shooter completely unprepared and unaware, and the striker with the knife is a long-legged sprinter. Even in this case, if we leave the track, it will be very difficult for the forward to turn, and this gives us more seconds.

In addition, virtually every permit issued by us can be interpreted as issued illegally due to:
Art. 10 sec. 5 pts 3

Quote:

A firearms license referred to in paragraph 1. 1, cannot be issued, with
subject to Art. 29 sec. 2, for weapons that are particularly dangerous in the form of:
[...]
3) firearms equipped with a noise suppressor or adapted to fire from
using a noise suppressor;

Because any firearm can be fitted with a silencer.

In general, this paragraph, as it stands, is very debatable in my opinion. On the one hand, the license for "protection" weapons allows you to purchase automatic weapons, and point 1 of the above-mentioned paragraph already prohibits ...

Quote:

automatic firearms capable of striking targets at a distance;

Madrik wrote:

Do you know why CP revolvers were popular, not pistols?
Because you could move the chamber and try to fire again - you had 6 shots, not 6 shots.

Because they were new and they were better. Instead of carrying 6 whole pistols (probably there were no snipers), which can be thrown in the heat of the fight anyway because you will not load, you carried one pistol with six chambers + additional drums for replacement, as magazines.
They were quickly replaced by integrated cartridge revolvers. Especially in private hands, because the army had great resistance.

Madrik wrote:

I get you, because I think everyone had a phase of "being macho from the estate". But that's not the way to go. Carrying a weapon will neither save you nor help you in anything. And carrying a kilogram firecracker with you, which is pleasant in the long term - is not.
The sooner you understand this, the better.

And if you are afraid of a robbery, wear two wallets. One is almost empty - PLN 10-20.
And in case of a robbery, just give it back.
Life is more important than a few zlotys.
And fighting is only justified in defending your life. No fortune or money is worth it.

I consider ideas. I don't feel threatened. A situation in which I had to pay back money and I had one phone call in my life (apart from one idiot who I told him that I wasn't going anywhere with him and he went alone ... I don't know what it was until today).
Though this one situation was developing so slowly that I would have had time to even take out the submachine gun and recharge it before it needed to be used. And they would probably just run away if they saw the gun.
The person telling me that he must have a weapon to carry in order to defend himself outside the home seems to me, at the very least, suspicious in our reality.

Hello.
My rules are like this.
If you are old, be weak or feel the need to:
1. buy yourself a black powder gun
2.Keep it in place and ready to use at home
available so that you are ready to use it very quickly.
3. If you notice a burglar or other thug, then immediately ... j.
Do not look at the rules, whether it is allowed or not, whether it is a minor, etc.
Remember:
- when you pull out a gun, then immediately ... j. After that, it is usually too late.
- Better that five would judge me later than six carried me.

Added after 9 [minutes]:

One more thing.

God made people and set them free.
Only Samuel Colt gave them equality.

Black powder revolvers, compared to modern products, is as handy as a brick for scratching the back.
Secondly, black powder weapons are not kept loaded, because the probability that they will not work increases with each passing day.
And if you find someone with modern weapons, your chances are similar to a chicken in a slaughterhouse.

If you really need a weapon to defend yourself, then make a normal promise and buy a Glock, for example, and invest in decent self-defense training, and don't buy an antique relic from almost 170 years ago. You can also buy a bow without permission, it is much cheaper and easier to store.

Do you really think you just need to buy a gun and you'll be a Cossack right away? ;)

If you don't know how to use it effectively, the one who enters your house will take this relic of metalwork from your hand and beat you with it, and finally put it in a dark place. And you also need to add the entire psychological background. Very few people are ready to use a weapon against another person. Even in extremely unfavorable situations. You can write to yourself what a Cossack you are, but when it comes down to it, your legs are soft, your hands go numb, a lump in your throat, convulsions like in a delirium and you forget your name ... What a different professional bandit. As a rule, a sociopath, intent on doing harm. He won't hesitate - you will. Who will win?

YT is full of videos of would-be boots that thought if they had a piece of "door handle" in their hands, the world is theirs. Not one of them six carried on ...

Something Madrik you are too much for.
This is suspicious in my opinion.
From your reasoning, it's best to be disarmed and have a bow to defend yourself
when someone comes to rob me.
Possession of "modern" firearms is associated with a waste of time to obtain a permit, with considerable costs,
and in addition not disposable.
Besides, the COMMANDANT may say that he does not see the need for me to have a gun. Despite the lack of other arguments !!!
You write "And if you come across someone with modern weapons, your chances are similar to a chicken in a slaughterhouse."
Total nonsense: just having any weapon, I have a chance.

You write "If you don't know how to use it effectively, the one who enters your house will take this monument of metalwork out of your hand and beat you with it, and finally put it in some dark place."

Another total nonsense: Thinking in your categories, it turns out that if I do not have a gun, both black powder or modern, the bandit will not have anything to put in a dark place and the problem will be solved by itself.
Your next argument (statement?)
"You really think you just need to buy a gun and you'll be a Cossack right away? "
I will not be a Cossack but, with modern weapons, I will also not be a Cossack.
It is obvious that nothing will help me in a disadvantaged situation.
But when I hear that someone is sneaking or walking around the house, having such a black duster, I can push.
The chances of it killing dung or scaring it off are average, but they are.
Whether or not my revolver works is up to me.
If I shoot a sandbag in the basement twice a month, I will be sure that everything is working.
You can also jump out of the shooting range from time to time, although black powder weapons also smoke heavily and not every shooting range
allows you to fire such weapons. For today I am as vulnerable as a child and I think it's time to try to change that.
Even for your own well-being.

Wiechs wrote:

For today I am as vulnerable as a child and I think it's time to try to change that

For example, set up an alarm and pay for physical security

Wiechs wrote:

when I hear that someone is sneaking or crawling around the house

It will already be notified protection.

I don't know how much truth there is, but I heard that every thief drinks a quarter on a burglary. When something goes wrong, he wants to be taken for an alcohol test and then it is explained that his wife did not want to let him in and wanted to enter the house through the window, and that in another city it (after drinking alcohol) ...

marqqv wrote:

It will already be notified protection.

... And it'll be here in an hour or two ... How do I know it ...
I disagree a bit with Kol. Madrik. For a break-in - a flat, or something like that, thugs are walking, but so to speak .. "low flights" . The mere sight of firearms scares them off. Sorry to interrupt, but I am. And I know it from my own experience. Recently, due to the workload, I neglected the shooting range, but I have a gun and I will not hesitate to use it if necessary. These are the realities here. If someone is a, law-abiding citizen ", has a permit and has slaughtered such dung on the premises of his property or house, which is evident Self Defense, in addition to a client known to the police, the local cops often skip the investigation. They close it up in the report on one page. Well, as I always emphasize - the good and bad sides of the Third World.

Wiechs wrote:

Something Madrik you are too much for.
This is suspicious in my opinion.
From your reasoning, it's best to be disarmed and have a bow to defend yourself
when someone comes to rob me.

You completely misunderstood.
Do you really think that a primitive, terribly unreliable monument - even if made today, will help you in something? It's a technology that was discontinued 170 years ago. For good reason. This was great when you had to conquer savages with spears. Less great when the other side had the same weapon.

Read some history. In the second half of the nineteenth century, there were a few nice massacres organized by owners of modern weapons, for combined ammunition, and by owners of black powder weapons.

By investing these several thousand in a piece of scrap metal stuffed with a very unreliable load, the only thing you have a chance is to raise your ego.
Secondly, such weapons must be learned to use. Charging takes up to a few minutes. If something does not work out with this "defense", no bandit will wait 15 minutes for you to deign to re-brand your invention.

You have to store black powder at home. Extremely unstable and unreliable substance. If it does not get wet (and becomes unsuitable for anything else), it can explode from electrostatics). There are huge problems with buying it.

You care about safety - Then pay attention to it. Yes, you have to waste time and money. You have to learn how to operate it, use it, and undergo a few training courses.
But it's about your and your family's safety.

Do you prefer without training, waste of time and so on - entrust your safety to a technique that remembers the times of the pikemen?
Even the modern black powder revolvers were abandoned after 25 years. Why do you think?

The topic of protecting your own home is very wide. Unfortunately, we are also heavily restricted by regulations. Putting the defender in an unequal position.
The law changing this situation is yet to be published.
If you are really worried about your safety, do it right, not with wasted quarters of money, wasting money, time and not changing anything in your security level.

Are you afraid that someone will come through your window - then replace the windows with those that even the SWAT team will not pass through. It's no problem, and no one is going to get you home.

Are you afraid of burglary - invest in the right doors and locks, but not from the supermarket and not serial. It will take hours for a break-in and no thief to play with the door. If they are not able to open the lock after 30 seconds, within a minute, they let go. Too high risk of a slip-up.

But don't base your safety on scrap metal that you have no idea about and all you can see is that it is a gun and it shoots.
You are playing in 19th-century reconstructions - black powder weapons will be useful to you. You like shooting sports - you can get interested in such weapons. Its flaws will add color.

But when we talk about defense against real threats, bandits with knives, or modern weapons - you have the same chances as a lone sheep in a lion enclosure. The bandit's illegal glock will burn out. Your scrap has 30-50% of it when freshly loaded, and much less as long as it is waiting for the "action". After a couple of months of lying in a cupboard, it won't burn out at all. And then any bummy will beat you up without much trouble. You will not shoot 2 times a month. With a very complicated and long (and at the same uncertain) loading process, you will not want to play these games after just a few months and the fairy tale will be over.

Exactly excessive trust in ineffective methods is one of the most common causes of a tragedy during an attack. You want to defend yourself, do it right. And so that you do not have to see your home after such an event, after 8 years of vacation.
Learn the rules, how to defend yourself. Maybe it's better to have a regular dick next to your bed? At home, just as effective in a small space.

In addition, the regulations on obtaining permits have been amended for two years. Mr. COMMANDANT cannot say "no because no" to you. It is still a difficult path, but it is not as discretionary as it was 5 or 10 years ago.
Maybe you would just check instead of talking nonsense.

For now, all you say is the classic "Seb" saying that he thinks he will cheat the system and will have a gun with nothing, because if he has one, no one will jump.
The system knows very well what kind of weapon it is and therefore is without permission. And not because someone has forgotten it.

Forgive me, but I don't want to continue the topic. Let's all stick to their opinion.
Goodbye.