Budanov opposed the legalization of weapons: “It will create even more problems.”

The Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, Kyrylo Budanov, speaking to journalists on the sidelines of the Kyiv Security Forum, once again emphasized,  that he is against the legalization of short-barreled weapons for the population.

He said this during a conversation with journalists.

The head of the Office of the President believes that owning a weapon “only creates the illusion of protection” and could lead to an increase in incidents like the one that recently occurred in Kyiv.

“There are two sides to this: supposed protection and the significantly larger number of similar cases, as recently observed. Security should be ensured by the police and intelligence agencies, not by distributing weapons among the population,” Budanov commented.

The Head of the Office also emphasized that the police and special services should work more effectively, rather than distributing weapons among the population.

“How it happened that a man who served in a place that everyone already knows, lived here for a long time, and even had a weapons permit—that’s also an interesting question,” Budanov said. 

Yes  The head of the Office of the President stated that Ukraine has a systemic problem, the consequences of which are currently being observed. Specifically, regarding the responsibility of law enforcement officers for the use of weapons on duty.

“Remember when there were bad cases of weapons use? Everyone remembers 2014. Everyone was made guilty. That’s understandable; it couldn’t have been any other way. But how did that affect those who continued serving? They don’t use weapons because the consequences would be dire. Then, remember, the patrol police were involved. And almost immediately, there was an incident where the patrol officers were pursuing a civilian car and started shooting at the tires. What happened to the patrol officers? They were convicted. There are thousands of such cases. Why does everyone think that, with such a system, where the state doesn’t protect its own defenders, these defenders will do their job to the fullest?” Budanov said.

And the head of the OP  called for a “balance” where society complies with law enforcement demands and law enforcement has “clear boundaries.”

“Everyone here likes to cite Western countries as examples. I like the example of the United States. There, you can’t tell a police officer, ‘What’s the reason for the stop?’ or ‘Get lost,’ or start doing something. That would end the use of force, and it would be 100% considered justified,” Budanov said.