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

Now, now, they were more than just "slave owners" weren't they? Besides, not all of them owned slaves. To ignore what they accomplished is deceitful and dishonest.


Ironic for you to use the word "logical". You ignore that it's logical to defend oneself. Thousands of gun owners do so every year.


Your guarantee is worthless. In fact, it's naive.


I would like to live in the Garden of Eden. Problem is, we live on earth. Maybe it's purgatory.

No, I'm SAYING that all innocents that were shot were murdered with a gun. It's pretty cut and dried.

What this had to do with what I wrote?

That's not very profound. It's like saying that all those hit by automobiles were killed by cars. Do away with cars.
I leave you with this..................John Lott does scholarly work and is an expert in his field. That probably means that it's not understandable to you.

johnlott.org/

not really 'like' at all no matter what u 'feel' about this Zimmy, cars were not actually designed to end life, while guns were.

Sure it is. Gun is just an extension of bow and arrows or a spear. Those who wanted have a say in a tribe had to be ready to defend themselves and their tribe and in that way earned their rights.

From Two fundamental rights, the right to refuse or consent to taxes and the right to own a gun. Remains only one - so far.

Not in Europe though.


Sliding - Poland already there but for one inch.


You don't even know what the law is like and what changes some people postulate. You are reacting emotionally.


Maybe it is maybe it isn't the point is that is not the only argument pro.

To question the bare faced cheek it takes to quote slave owning government apparatchiks who wrote about freedom and the dangers of government is not dishonest, highlighting hypocrisy is not deceitful.

Think about it for a moment....slave owners writing about freedom, writing about all men created equal.
Are you going to quote from Herod's radical child care regime?

It's logical to form an argument that holds water not chant the mantra of hollow threats in some paranoid world of crap conspiracy theories.


Well isn't that a surprise.......


From your link


It would be great if you copy/pasted some of this persons arguments zim then there would be something to debate. You have just posted an ad for a book, a totally random link, less useful than a link to an online pizza shop.

You haven't really got the hang of supporting evidence yet zim

I know more than you think but you're right- I don't know as much about it as you because I'm content with the current state and I never wanted to have a gun.

However let's say I have no idea about gun laws:
1- I would seriously study the changes if we were going to vote on them
2- nothing emotional about wanting to keep the status quo.

Yes it is emotional reaction if you don't know facts.


It is for Sejm to make those changes - where you took that idea from that you would need referendum for that?


How would you know what I think?


yes because -


So why concern yourself with those who just want a reasonable chance to get a gun?

Not if you think that present legislation works well


I know it's for Sejm to decide I asked the question about referendum to keep it from talking about government and so on. I wanted to know what Zimmy reaction would be if the Poles decided they want to keep the laws as they are.


True. I assumed I know what you're thinking- sorry.


Because it would affect me?

Well but it doesn't - you don't know facts.


You assume it would affect you. In fact it wouldn't affect you at all as you don't want to own a gun.

But it would since we are living in the same place. Every law affects all nation in one way or the other.

That law wouldn't affect you at all. Unless you would be unhappy that few people would be able to legally own a gun.lol

You probably missed the part where his work has been discredited by many other experts.

Depends on what requirements there would be to legally own a gun. And any changes affects whole nation- pro or against.

Oh God, if only your solution would be allowed to take place.

I'm not sure about a right being enshrined, but would prefer to see some form of strict licensing system put in place. A "Right" predicates a gun owner (or potential one) being able to acquire and keep a weapon without the sorts of checks and balances that a licensing system would have, and I think such system ought to be preferred.


Anecdotally, I heard a story a few years back that during the Cuban Missile crisis, the Soviets were contemplating some form of invasion of the USA but gave that the kibosh when the intelligence came through that they would probably have to also battle the millions of US citizens who held their own firearms.

Yet they do. If life is important to you then why do you ignore the automobile carnage? Will you suffer less if a loved one dies in a car accident? Since thugs make up a big percentage of those shot (gang-on-gang murders) then truly innocent people have more to fear from auto accidents.


I was hoping you'd do some research on John Lott's book because there are many google references to his work. He is preeminent in his field on guns.


Only liberal gun grabbers discredit him and they do so without considering his tremendous amount of information backed by stats and footnotes.
Here is an example of how liberals like Piers Morgan use emotion and name-calling while ignoring facts given him. This is a clinic on how emotion trumps logic.

If you got shot in a leg (which I don't wish for you even though you sound like a gut totting idi.t) then you would be..what you call it? Oh yeah, EMOTIONAL! Your pimply school boy logic would disappear in a flash. So don't play with guns Zimny! They are dangerous, especially in the hands of a child, and we don't want children running around with guns in Poland do we?

Not only it seems.


salon/2012/12/21/why_is_the_media_rehabilitating_john_lott

And there's more here:


mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/17/who-is-gun-advocate-john-lott/191885


The thing is you can't dissociate logic and emotions. We would be all dead the day that happens. Of course, you can't talk ONLY with your emotions, you would sound completely irrational probably. But the rest of the time, emotions count. We are not robots.

Honestly, if the only pro argument is to be able to defend yourself, why not try something less harmful, like tasers or anything else?
I'm not an expert in this field of course, but I'd like to discuss it.

Because I don't have any reason to trust what you'll do with it. Or what someone who steals it from you does with it. Ironside, did you know that the bullets that go INTO guns don't STAY there? I know, crazy right? They happen to travel great speeds and distances and sometimes end up in people that don't want them! SO. You're owning a gun DOES affect other people, because they were created TO affect other people. You want me to just take your word that you'll only use it for upstanding purposes? Then why do we need licenses to drive? I'll just take your WORD that you'll be safe. Why shouldn't you have a missile-firing drone all of your own? I'll just take your WORD you won't use it to spy on or kill your neighbors. Stop pretending that you're some sentient computer and that all decisions are based on binary logic and never on emotion. It's ridiculous.

This is how supporting links work.......
You make a statement then you provide supporting evidence for that statement, posting a random ad does neither of those things.
If you would like to copy his argument do so then we can discuss.

It's as I said above Zim you just copy /paste random nonsense.

Well Poison, as I previously noted, those who object to Mr. Lott's facts come from the left. No surprises there. Your sources, "Salon" and "Media Matters" can be counted on to be counter factual. as their 'progressive' agenda trumps truth. You believe them, I don't. As the video above shows, liberals count on emotion while the calm, cool researchers stick to facts.


That's fine as far as it goes. Here is the problem with that. You should not make judgments based on emotion. Frequently, that may be difficult to do but as evolving humans we should try to make decisions based on reason and logic.

For example, anger is an emotion. Don't make a decision when you are angry, wait until your head clears. Too many people, like the gun grabbers default to emotion to make their narrow minded points. Humans have a higher calling than that.


Ironic for you to say that since you don't provide any evidence in your critiques.


I don't want to be cruel but your sophomoric comments suggest that you really have no idea about this subject. I enjoy target shooting , I enjoy hunting and in one instance I've even protected myself.

A cool, calm discussion about guns is difficult for gun grabbers. The following video is presented in just such a calm, composed manner therefore watching it from start to finish may not be possible for the emotional anti gun cultists.

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FWNOiw_XIV8

Cool calm discussions don't usually involve insulting the other side.

He also tells us we're incapable of understanding his source material, but the point you make here is the one I was also struck by. Zimmy, are you aware of the concept of irony? You call people names in the EXACT SAME breath you use to call for "cool, calm discussion". That's... there has to be a word that's better-fitting than hypocritical, but it eludes me.

Exactly

but the fellow in the videos was quite mild and his negativity was saying Piers Morgan is biased.

Well he is. No matter if you agree or disagree with him he has a personal motivation and agenda.

How is calling gun grabbers "emotional" an insult when this attribute of emotion is defended by them?

You really are oblivious. How about NOT calling them "gun grabbers" to start with? Is it because the people that you disagree with make you... emotional?

I have not made any claim that requires supporting evidence.

I asked a few questions and pointed to the disparity in gun deaths between the US and Europe. You refuse to answer simple questions preferring instead to beat the same old drum with your one second hand argument.

You have a general inability to debate a point or understand the purpose and use of supporting evidence.

Is the term "gun grabbers" too strong for you? My, what a sensitive emotion. What should I call people who want to take away my guns? Are they 'gun borrowers'? lol


You and some others are the ones defending emotion. Unlike you, I've suggested not making decisions based on emotion.

It's noticeable that instead of arguing the points made about gun control, you and others prefer to make-up untruths about me. That just shows how bereft of the subject matter you are. It's also noticeable that no one thus far has commented on the excellent points made by the calm nice man in my video above. When gun control measures are enacted than violent and other kinds of crime go up. That's true in England, Germany and in the U.S. Conceal and carry states have lower crime rates while strict gun control areas like Chicago have higher ones. Once again, logic doesn't affect those who prefer to make their judgments based on their 'feelings' and emotions.


Evidently you didn't bother to watch the video above which rationally explains that to you.


LOL. That's for sure.

Driving up to Wisconsin to do some practice target shooting (too cold to golf); drink some wine, smoke good premium cigars and teach my tall Serbian girlfriend how to properly shoot a variety of guns. Enjoy the day everyone.