The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / Law  % width posts: 1,615

The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland?


ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
24 Jul 2011 #391
...should be part of school curriculum.

Yes, our educational institutions should be required to teach 'gun diversity' training. I intentionally put in the word 'diversity' because it will confuse liberals who in their mesmerized state will immediately support anything with that word in it.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
24 Jul 2011 #392
Unlikely. And the presence of an armed cop didn't stop the Norway killing spree.
Llamatic - | 144
24 Jul 2011 #393
an armed policeman there. He was shot dead too.

armed policeman's (who was shot dead) gun training didn't stop the tragedy.

the presence of an armed cop didn't stop the Norway killing spree.

How many times are you going to post this silly inanity? (Are you perhaps celebrating the killing of a cop?)
It means nothing and certainly it does not mean that having armed security is completely worthless. This is ONE event, when statistical proof shows us that guns in law abiding hands indeed reduce violent crime.

The Childish Left is just so fearfully anti-gun that they'll say any old thing... Lol.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
24 Jul 2011 #394
it does not mean that having armed security is completely worthless

It was worthless here. It seems gun lovers just don't like facts.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
24 Jul 2011 #395
he presence of an armed cop didn't stop the Norway killing spree.

Perhaps they needed two armed cops?
Perhaps this is an argument for 'conceal and carry'? If some of the adults there had a weapon then the madman would not have kept shooting so incredibly long.

This event shows that honest people should be allowed to own and carry guns. As is often said; "if guns are outlawed then only the bad guys will have them."
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
24 Jul 2011 #396
Perhaps they needed two armed cops?

At a summer camp?

Perhaps

Perhaps

So much perhaps. But the fact remains that having an armed policeman didn't stop the killing and that the killer owned his gun legally.
Llamatic - | 144
24 Jul 2011 #397
Perhaps this is an argument for 'conceal and carry'? If some of the adults there had a weapon then the madman would not have kept shooting so incredibly long.
This event shows that honest people should be allowed to own and carry guns.

Of course, of course it does. But the emotional gun-fearing childish folks here are trying to somehow spin this event in the opposite direction. Reality doesn't mean much to such folks.

Wasn't the shooter gay or pro-gay or something? Maybe the cops should be kicking in the doors of such people to make sure there aren't any more violent shooters out there.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
24 Jul 2011 #398
It seems gun lovers just don't like facts.

You will once again be introduced to this book: amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0226493636/t/3782-9387712-550397

Information from the book......

"The statistics are dramatic. Whenever concealed carry laws went into effect in a county during this 1 6-year period, murders fell by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, and aggravated assaults by 7 percent. If...., all states had enacted "shall issue" laws, murders in the United States would have decreased by 1,570. There would have been 4,177 fewer rapes and over 60,000 fewer aggravated assaults. This unequivo­cally supports the wisdom of our Founding Fathers who guaranteed that our right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."

"It means that the bleeding heart gun control advocates, the Sarah Brady types weeping about dead children, and our legislators and presi­dents who support them, are directly responsible for the deaths of over 1500 Americans.....

At a summer camp?

I wouldn't think so either, but there you have it. It happened.

So much perhaps

Exactly!
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
24 Jul 2011 #399
No doubt a riveting book, but nevertheless a polemic - published to support a particular lobby and with very spurious reasoning. And not about our Europe. Fortunately there is no impetus for freely available guns in Europe.
Llamatic - | 144
24 Jul 2011 #400
Fortunately there is no impetus for freely available guns in Europe.

Sure there is. This shooting incident.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
24 Jul 2011 #401
By a guy with a legal gun. And there is no impetus for guns to be more freely available - maybe you should check out the meaning of the word impetus. Most Europeans would be happy with even tighter gun control.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,475
24 Jul 2011 #402
Sure there is. This shooting incident.

And you think modern European social democrats would take guns to a party meeting on a nice island?

Just shows how little you know about Europe.
Llamatic - | 144
24 Jul 2011 #403
there is no impetus for guns to be more freely available - maybe you should check out the meaning of the word impetus.

Maybe you should. The impetus for more guns in European society is this incident where the lack of camp counselors with guns which could have greatly reduced the body count.

our Founding Fathers who guaranteed that our right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”

The PA Constitution goes one step further and states that the right of individuals to keep and bear arms "shall not be questioned." -Not so much as questioned. So I can have gun-grabbers locked up for violating my constitutional rights if they so much as question my right to own guns. Libs don't like to talk about this. Lol.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,475
24 Jul 2011 #404
Maybe you should. The impetus for more guns in European society is this incident where the lack of camp counselors with guns which could have greatly reduced the body count.

Again, it's pretty obvious that you know nothing about Europe by your repeated idiocy. There would be zero support for them to carry guns at this meeting. Absolutely zero. If you can't get that into your skull, then it's pretty obvious that you're just another dumb yankee who has never left the United States in his life.

Anyway, as far as I can tell - there was no "counselors" there anyway.

The PA Constitution goes one step further and states that the right of individuals to keep and bear arms "shall not be questioned." -Not so much as questioned. So I can have gun-grabbers locked up for violating my constitutional rights if they so much as question my right to own guns. Libs don't like to talk about this. Lol.

Would that be the same state that requires a licence to possess a firearm?

Looks to me that the Constitution is worthless.

Still, nice of you to turn a tragic event into yet another opportunity to bash imagined liberal enemies. Such a...nice guy, aren't you?
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
24 Jul 2011 #405
There's no need to ruin Europe by putting more firearms in it. No need to overreact with irrationality. Europe has a good thing going with low gun violence, even with this incident. More guns would only foul that up.
Malopolanin 3 | 133
25 Jul 2011 #406
You do realise that he was "Right", yeah?

I heard he was mason and pro-gay.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
25 Jul 2011 #407
There's no need to ruin Europe by putting more firearms in it

There is "no need to ruin Europe" by letting people continue to drive automobiles (just look up the death stats and compare them to gun related violence).

Most Europeans would be happy with even tighter gun control.

How about more automobile control? It would save lives, let alone all those injuries. Let's be consistent.

I heard he was mason and pro-gay.

I found it interesting that the very first descriptions we've heard about this nutcase was that he was "right wing". When other bombings occurred, the press acted quite differently. We were in essence, told to "wait for the facts".

It's odd that some "right wing racist" nutcase would kill his own people instead of those he allegedly despised. It's exactly opposite of what his supposed leanings would do. At this point, not much of this makes sense. I suggest, let's "wait for the facts" to come out. My guess is that this young man is insane.
modafinil - | 418
25 Jul 2011 #408
I found it interesting that the very first descriptions we've heard about this nutcase was that he was "right wing". When other bombings occurred, the press acted quite differently. We were in essence, told to "wait for the facts".

Bullspit. The NYT were the first to run with muslim terrorist responsibilty, now withdrawn, of course.
alexw68
25 Jul 2011 #409
There is "no need to ruin Europe" by letting people continue to drive automobiles (just look up the death stats and compare them to gun related violence).

And then look again, applying the correct statistical comparison.

Number of car-related deaths vs. number of gun-related deaths simply won't do. The safety measure has to be something like (number of times used)/(number of deaths). In other words, cars get used a helluva lot more than guns do, on any reckoning. Now compare number of times firearms are used/number of deaths caused by firearms.

Not a pretty sight.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
25 Jul 2011 #410
The NYT were the first to run with muslim terrorist responsibilty, now withdrawn, of course.

The very liberal New York Times is often wrong. They excel in picking-and-choosing their headline stories. My comment, nevertheless, remains true.

cars get used a helluva lot more than guns do,

Yet, the end result is still there and that's why it is called the bottom line.

I might ski 2000 times before breaking my leg. You might ski 3 times before breaking your leg. Bottom lins is - we both have one broken leg each. We should outlaw skiing.
teflcat 5 | 1,032
25 Jul 2011 #411
I've just been reading Anders Breivik's nonsense on document.no
It was like reading posts from PF. Check it out.
Llamatic - | 144
25 Jul 2011 #412
Number of car-related deaths vs. number of gun-related deaths simply won't do. The safety measure has to be something like (number of times used)/(number of deaths). In other words, cars get used a helluva lot more than guns do, on any reckoning. Now compare number of times firearms are used/number of deaths caused by firearms.

Cars kill more people than guns! Clearly we must ban all cars at once! Whawhawhaaaaaa!!!!!!!1
Lyzko
25 Jul 2011 #413
The purpose of cars though is not to kill. Guns etc. are something else now!
alexw68
25 Jul 2011 #414
Cars kill more people than guns! Clearly we must ban all cars at once! Whawhawhaaaaaa!!!!!!!1

I hope your ability to hit a target with your weapon of choice is a little better than your ability to grasp a point. If not, you should be banned from carrying firearms - and, indeed, driving - for your own safety.
Lyzko
25 Jul 2011 #415
...to grasp a point, or, to drive. Cars can be lethal weapons, granted! Again though, this is not their sole purpose.
Llamatic - | 144
25 Jul 2011 #416
Nope. You're parsing. Using the anti-gun Left's own shrill childish logic, cars simply kill more people, they are evil, so they need to be banned. End of debate.
Lyzko
25 Jul 2011 #417
...along with cell phones, landlines, beepers, trucks, planes........
Whose argument is "shrill" here, buddy?? Yours ls like a freakin' dog whistle-:)
alexw68
25 Jul 2011 #418
Using the anti-gun Left's own shrill childish logic

Er, no, that's not how the Left thinks. It may be how the ridiculous, paranoid chimera one or two of you guys over the pond have boiled up in your cauldron of isolationist bile and subsequently called the Left (but is in fact nothing of the kind) thinks - but any similarity between these two notions is entirely coincidental and almost definitely non-existent.
Llamatic - | 144
25 Jul 2011 #419
that's not how the Left thinks

Dude, have you read some of the shrill gun-fearing folks here? One more childish one actually called guns poopyheads. :s
modafinil - | 418
25 Jul 2011 #420
Are there any other countries other than the US where just about any thicko can go into a supermarket and buy a gun?


Home / Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.