The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Posts by nott  

Joined: 2 Jun 2010 / Male ♂
Last Post: 26 Jul 2011
Threads: 3
Posts: 592

Displayed posts: 595 / page 1 of 20
sort: Latest first   Oldest first   |
nott   
26 Jul 2011
Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2679]

isthatu2No,its not about punishment,never was.

Oh, it is. When you risk being hung for robbery, it makes you think. When it's two years in comfort, what the fck.

isthatu2Its a culture shift, (..) in the 90s would have at most ended up with a bit of a staring out contest or one or two punches.

That's the thing I kept in my mind all the time. Culture is important. For example, there's as many knives in Poland as in England, but no stabbing culture. No knife-carrying culture, except some regions despised widely for this very reason.

And no gun culture. So if I were to introduce freedom of gun ownership, it would be like what somebody already said, similar to driving license.

Still, it's not quite about those gangs. I don;t think legal gun ownership would solve this particular problem. It's about common, private crime, businesslike thing, to get money or enjoy power.
nott   
26 Jul 2011
Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2679]

isthatu2

that sideways shooting is cool, innit

And that's possibly a hint. Cool is something that bears no real consequences. You don't show off if it may cost you life - in prison, say.

I am loosely interpreting now, a micro rant. So to get on track again - one thing that changed in those 100 years is attitude to thugs, regardless of multi-culti. Punishment used to be, now it is what it is. Still, punishment is not enough if it takes police an hour to come and stop a maniac.
nott   
25 Jul 2011
Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2679]

JonnyM: But more likely to find gun crime in the mean streets.

Why, then?

JonnyM: It was good when they were all unarmed, but the presence of guns means some of the police at least have to be.

You are not listening. There were lots of guns in the Edwardian Britain
nott   
25 Jul 2011
Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2679]

JonnyM: A vast rural state with a population the size of Rzeszów is likely to have lower crime stats than in, for example, Miami.

Density of population the.. However, I don;t really follow that. Easier to visit a lonely farmer and gun him down for whatever reason.

JonnyM: right with their fingers on the trigger of something lethal.

We are talking non-lethal now. You don't like it anyway. Exactly what the Right was saying all the time, it's not about guns killing people. It's about people with guns.

JonnyM: Hunters, police, and exceptional circumstances can justify it.

Hunters, for fun, Ok. People, for defence...

Police - we are back in the Edwardian Britain. Police unarmed, people quite, low crime rate. Not that I want to disarm the police.
nott   
25 Jul 2011
Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2679]

JonnyM: I hope you aren't trying to compare, say, North Dakota with Poland.

No. Say, Vermont and California. Why population is a factor?

JonnyM: No. Proliferation is proliferation, without ifs and buts.

See, it's not about 'guns kill people' at all. Seems right wing gun nutters were right.

edit:

I once lived in a bad area and considered (for a day or so) carrying a knife.

I considered carrying a razor. Old style, grandpa's razor. I trained using it. I carried it for a stretch. My routes were limited.

To each his own. I am not advocating compulsory arming of everybody.
nott   
25 Jul 2011
Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2679]

JonnyM: Most importantly, what other factors were at play?

Dunno. What other factors are at play today? Is there a correlation between concealed carry and low rate of violent crime, now? Well, seems there is.

All I hear is 'more guns, more deaths, ban guns'. Hundred years ago it was so very different, Britain was not an exception. What changed? Internet? EU? Pop music? Cheap flights?
nott   
25 Jul 2011
Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2679]

JonnyM:they have no deputies in parliament and get less than 4% of the vote

They had about 8% of sympathisers. Most of those would vote on them because 'that's a lost vote. Due to a ridiculously disproportional media campaign, with GW in the lead.

Now on topic:

nott: What about the non-killing ammo?

nott: 'Crime was, by today's standards, remarkably low. Yet anyone could walk into one of numerous shops and buy a revolver. '

Hm? Anybody?
nott   
25 Jul 2011
Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2679]

JonnyM: That's why no political party advocates reducing gun control

UPR, for one.

What about the non-killing ammo? No comments?

And there were no comments on my post about Edwardian Britain. 'Crime was, by today's standards, remarkably low. Yet anyone could walk into one of numerous shops and buy a revolver. ' And police was not armed, was it? And poverty was a problem.
nott   
25 Jul 2011
Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2679]

Lyzko: The purpose of cars though is not to kill. Guns etc. are something else now!

Guns are to defend. Cars serve as means of transport, guns provide safety. Different tool, different use.

Imagine non-killing but effective ammunition. Practical requirements are known: bullets with huge stopping power, but not penetrating. Incidentally, 2 or 3 decades ago the French designed and successfully tested exactly this kind of ammo. It looked like a squat bullet with concave curvature of the tip. Kinda heavy tack.

Never went to production, and if I recall well, for political reasons. Apparently this would greatly increase pressure on the right to carry, and 'we are not having this kind of thing'.

Makes one think, like.

Of course, even with this kind of ammo there would be accidents, read deaths. Same like with cars. Or baseball bats. Or alcohol.
nott   
25 Jul 2011
History / Polish historical myths - to break or not to break them? [257]

:) I apologise profoundly.... Please blame the fervour of dispute and, well, come to think of it, my abominable inclination to follow this thing whenever and wherever it lures me. I have to work on it. I will. So help me... erm... anybody, please? Help?

now if gumishu says the same, you two have won... but this is not fair, two against one!
nott   
23 Jul 2011
Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2679]

Lyzko: Nott, I'm simply saying that your argument cuts both ways. Should people be allowed to protect and defend their home? Obviously.

thanks.

Lyzko: The question is whether arming all citizens, as with arming all passengers on planes, necessarily the panacea we've been looking for.

Been discussed over and over, sometimes I just don;t see the point to punch the keyboard.... First, it's not about arming all citizens. It'a about allowing 'all' citizens to carry guns. 'All', because there are obvious exceptions.

As for panacea, there's enough evidence that concealed weapons do diminish the crime rate dramatically. This will not solve all problems, but no other solution even faces this challenge ever, to be a panaceum. Seems unfair, like.

Lyzko: A hunting rifle, used for that purpose only, should be a stop-gap measure, not merely an excuse for some yahoo in the middle of Nowheresville, USA to go off their nut at the slightest provocation!

Not sure I am following you here... You mean when people owned guns just as a matter of fact, they shot at anybody who happened to look not quite happy, and this possibly due to the presence of the gun owner? Or that they readily excused those who reacted that way?

Barney: Hey look the councillor just shot the postman!

etc. Barney, freely armed society is neither a gun-nuts utopia, nor a phenomenon unique to few states of the notorious USA. All countries used to be like that. No historical evidence whatsoever of any actual specifically gun related problems in them.
nott   
23 Jul 2011
History / Polish historical myths - to break or not to break them? [257]

nott: They didn't need the back armour, because they were hardly ever pursued,

If they had needed it, for any reason, they'd had made it workable. Wooden stick is not a protection against a sabre. Polish combat sabre was capable of cutting through a brass door handle, Tartars' sabres were not as good, but good enough for inch of wood. Tartars were not as proficient fencers as an average Polish gentryman, still perfectly able to slash vertically if they wanted to, or to stab, if they desired. I myself can do that, if attacking from the back. You can, Monia can. The idea of wings as protection against cuts from the back is ridiculous.
nott   
23 Jul 2011
Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2679]

Lyzko: Weren't they [guns] in fact only useful as a way for the Native Americans to defend themselves against a race of invaders who shouldn't have been there in the first place??!

yet they are not useful as a way for the decent citizens to defend themselves against a bunch of criminals invading their personal territory, is what you're saying?
nott   
23 Jul 2011
History / What are Poland's pagan roots? [62]

pawian: Actually, in 1037

Wiki is a gang of ignorants just showing off anonymously, and everybody knows it.

Having said that, I must reluctantly admit that this time you might be somewhere close to the actual truth. Somehow I managed to move Masław two centuries into his future.
nott   
23 Jul 2011
History / Polish historical myths - to break or not to break them? [257]

Monia:You have just answered yourself , they didn`t need a back armour , because the wings attached protected them from back cutting

Nice try, but no. Hussars were the elite force, professionals, they had enough money to buy or fashion any weapon and armour currently available. Or they went to pancerni, a.k.a. kozacy a.k.a. zaporożcy. A wooden pole is no match to a metal rod, price difference laughable if you consider an armour plate, szabla, koncerz, pistols, and, last but not least, a hussar horse.

They didn't need the back armour, because they were hardly ever pursued, Monia...

Monia:You should read some historical books about Tatars fighting methods , they were using lassos , in fact .

They did, but not against hussars. Against hussars their only possible engagement methods were to shoot an avalanche of arrows from distance and flee, or to stand fast en masse against the hussar charge and hope to just drown them with the sheer weight of numbers.

The weight difference solves the issue for me, even if we would imagine a Tartar having enough gall and time to lasso a hussar. Seen how the cowboys lassoed cattle? Usually the lasso is tied to the saddle. Loop goes over the cows neck, the horse is prompted to turn around and pull in the other direction - or the risk is that it topples over, as a running cow is about as heavy as a mounted cowboy. And it's running madly. Now imagine a small man on a small horse trying to halt a big man in heavy armour, securely seated on a heavy horse.

Tartars used a different kind of lasso anyway. It was a longish pole with a loop at the end. Easier to catch the objective, more difficult to keep hold of it.

The only scenario I can imagine is Tartars pursuing hussar fugitives, exhausted, disarmed, possibly wounded, after an unsuccessful battle. Now tell me the elite force, the proudest formation of the whole Res Publica habitually bears on its back this symbol of cowardice. OhKey, we are going to charge those half-size mongrels, better have some fancy way to avoid being caught by them after they beat the holy crap out of us. How about a wooden stick with feathers on it.

I am guessing this interpretation is by some contemporary western experts on cavalry. Those who ridiculed the 'impossible' effectiveness of kopia and effectiveness of an actual charge, and imagined both a Tartar and a hussar as just a foreign rajtar in a fancy dress.

gumishu:pulling from the back is I guess considerably more effective in dismounting any rider then pushing from the front - in case of pushing from the front the body automatically reacts to oppose, a reaction which is not present in puling from behind

Pure physics says you are wrong. But you have a point - while thrusting a kopia against a target a hussar is ready to take the impact and to act against it, and if suddenly pulled from behind he might be unsaddled easier. Still, this doesn't fit the reality of a hussar-Tartar encounter - how come there's a cavorting Tartar behind a hussar, still with his lasso, and undisturbed enough to use it.

everything can happen in the course of, of course, but it's not any reason for the whole army to take serious measures against it.

gumishu:there is also a difference in where the force is applied - lassoe can catch the upper part of the body (including the head only which is very dangerous) - in all I believe lassoing is a very effective way of dismounting (and consequently harming) a rider of any kind (especially pulling from behind) and thus very dangerous

First thing is you need to contemplate using a lasso at all. A hussar regiment was not a herd of cattle, and they had projectile weapons too, and firearms as well, and were eager to charge. Cant' see a Tartar czambuł circling a bewildered hussars at close range and picking them one by one with lassoes.

Anyway, I can't really see how the wings protected against this hypothetical lasso. After the loop has fallen low enough, I just pull it and don't bother if I got a a hussar with wings or wingless.
nott   
23 Jul 2011
History / Polish historical myths - to break or not to break them? [257]

Monia, google translations are tricky, I'd say if you want to present the non-Polish speaking people with Polish texts, then just do it yourself and let them trust you.

- The rustle of wings had a scare enemy horses

somehow I can't see it. I would think it possible that some specific hissing sound could be extremely annoying to horses not acquainted with it, and would be audible to them despite the thunder of hooves, thanks to that big difference in frequencies. Still... if you take a feather, and move it quickly, there's not much sound. And you are moving it much faster than those 30-40 km/h.

- The wings were supposed to protect against cutting sword from behind

Could be, hussars armour had no backplate. Then why not use a backplate, or just a couple of metal rods there. They just never needed it.

- Have to protect against capturing the Tatar lasso

Now that's utter crap. Tartars hunting hussars with lassoes? Hussars considering being hunted with lassoes as a real threat? Like, there's a hussar regiment, suddenly Tartars charge on them like on a herd of cow, and each picks up his hussar and lassoes him?

All aside, mounted Tartar was maybe half the weight of a mounted hussar. A hussar captured with a lasso has two options, either attack the captor, and then being circled by a loose string is of no importance, or flee. In the second case the best decision of the Tartar is to let go. Or he finds himself unsaddled and dragged behind the fleeing hussar. Not only the hussar in armour is substantially heavier than the Tartar, but the hussar's saddle is specially designed to withstand an attempt to dismount him by pushing from he front, and, consequently, by pulling from the back. That would be a very sorry Tartar who'd hold to the lasso. Absolute rubbish.
nott   
22 Jul 2011
History / What are Poland's pagan roots? [62]

JozefKPilsudski:We all know that the majority of Poles become Christian in 966,

a minority, Mieszko and his court. The rest followed rather reluctantly, with the missionary methods including breaking out teeth of those who didn't see the light.

JozefKPilsudski:but I was wondering lately if some Poles remained Pagan afterwards.

There was a big pagan uprising as late as in the 13th century.
nott   
22 Jul 2011
History / Polish historical myths - to break or not to break them? [257]

Certainly more expensive than local furs.

Des Essientes

Des, care to quote the original text? This translation is rubbish.

P.S. Who's the fckin moron that removed the facility of automatically starting a quote with the quoted person's nick? Admin, you allow retards to meddle with the forums?
nott   
22 Jul 2011
Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2679]

Lyzko: from whence did the gun "culture" arise?? It arose from the Constitution's allowing all US citizens the right to bear arms

Gun culture arose from the development of mass production of reliable and relatively cheap firearms. And it died, where it died, as a result of state regulation. In Poland, firearms regulation was first introduced by the tzarist regime after the January Uprising. And if I am not mistaken, this was the first regulation of this kind in Europe.

Now look at this:
"Crime was, by today's standards, remarkably low. Yet anyone could walk into one of numerous shops and buy a revolver. The fashionable Wembley-Green could be had blued or in nickel plate, with an ivory or mother-of-pearl handle. Edwardian Britain was an armoured country, even after the Pistols Act of 1903 thoughtfully banned sales of handguns to people under eighteen or 'drunken or insane'. In the 'Tottenham Outrage' of 1909, police chasing a gang simply picked up four pistols from passers-by for the pursuit; other armed citizens joined in."

from 'The Making of Modern Britain' by Andrew Marr, 2009. United Kingdom never had a constitution
nott   
18 Jul 2011
History / Norman Davies - the Brit who loves Poland and becomes one of Us [250]

nott: That's it, yes. Kudos for clarification.
So in your opinion Jews chose to live in segregated towns and that is why gentile Poles had to apply for permission to have Jews banned from living in their towns. Perfect logic there.

It's your logic here, Harry. Sarcasm failed miserably.

nott: You are delusional. You've shown not a shred of argument against this claim.

All of the cities applying for permission to have Jews banned from living there actually very much shows that Jews wanted to live in non-segregated towns.

huh? How banning Jews from the town proves that Jews never preferred to create Jewish quarters in said towns, otherwise knows as ghettos?

Do you know what a shtetl was? Loosely translated as 'Jewish town', like in 'China town'. A settlement of Jews, usually near non-Jewish settlement, or a previous part of it. Often close to gentiles, because Jewish and non-Jewish economies were complementary. Distinct, because Jews preferred to live together, as any fcking minority with strong identity. Your proof is ridiculous. Really, sometimes I don;t know if you're just so persistent in pissing contests, or plain stupid.

If Jews had wanted to only live in segregated towns, there would be no need for gentiles to have them banned from living in 'their' towns.

Jews created their own quarters and settlements all over Poland regardless if there was a town with a privilege, or not. Only few chose to live amongst gentiles, like when running inns or those who couldn't cope in a shtetl, or those who were banished from a ghetto.

And the ban was not only about settlement. Mainly it was about no Jewish trade in the town, that was what counted, and that was what most economical privileges of the period were: dictating who can and who can not. Settlement being just a common sense extension. Jews were allowed to live exactly outside the jurisdiction, in any spacial arrangement they chose, still banned from bringing handełe to the town.

Only about 20% towns in Poland ever were granted the privilege, if I am not mistaken. In others either Jews were absent or few, or created a ghetto or shtetl.

So in fact, as has been shown, there is far more than just a shred of argument against your lie: there is cast iron proof as shown by the actions of gentile Poles.

bollox

nott: If, good choice of keyword.
I used 'if' because you do not actually have to come here and lie, you are perfectly free to tell the truth, although I can see that you don't like to.

I know why you used it.

Mod, what about this 'LIE' thing? Or Harry has some special 'royal edicts' granted.

Everybody has an opinion; and it's OK, as long as the forum rules are followed.