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
26 Mar 2013 #721
Posting a bunch of quotes from the slave owners

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.

You have to form a reasoned logical position,

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.

fighting a tyrannical government is a case in point. It's an empty slogan and hollow threat for a situation that will not arise.

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

I can only say that I'm glad that there are no signals that Poland will change the gun ownership laws.And I'm happy noone can force it on us.

I would like to live in the Garden of Eden. Problem is, we live on earth. Maybe it's purgatory.
jasondmzk
26 Mar 2013 #722
Are you implying that all gun owners murder?

No, I'm SAYING that all innocents that were shot were murdered with a gun. It's pretty cut and dried.
Lenka 3 | 2,553
26 Mar 2013 #723
I would like to live in the Garden of Eden. Problem is, we live on earth. Maybe it's purgatory

What this had to do with what I wrote?
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
26 Mar 2013 #724
I'm SAYING that all innocents that were shot were murdered with a gun. It's pretty cut and dried.

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/
rozumiemnic 8 | 3,940
26 Mar 2013 #725
It's like saying that all those hit by automobiles were killed by cars. Do away with cars.

not really 'like' at all no matter what u 'feel' about this Zimmy, cars were not actually designed to end life, while guns were.
Ironside 50 | 10,934
26 Mar 2013 #726
owning a gun is not a natural right

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.

but when I mention Poles deciding in a voting that they don't want guns you say we would deserve sliding into self-enslavement?

Sliding - Poland already there but for one inch.

Cool.I can only say that I'm glad that there are no signals that Poland will change the gun ownership laws.And I'm happy noone can force it on us.

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

You have to form a reasoned logical position, the nonsense about fighting a tyrannical government is a case in point. It's an empty slogan and hollow threat for a situation that will not arise.

Maybe it is maybe it isn't the point is that is not the only argument pro.
Barney 15 | 1,477
26 Mar 2013 #727
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.

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.

What this had to do with what I wrote?

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

I leave you with this..................John Lott

From your link

In his bestselling classic, More Guns, Less Crime, John R. Lott, Jr., proved that guns make us safer. Now, in his stunning new book, The Bias against Guns, Lott shows how liberals bury pro-gun facts out of sheer bias against the truth.

With irrefutable evidence, Lott shoots gun critics down and gives you the information you need to win arguments with those who want to ban guns.

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
Lenka 3 | 2,553
26 Mar 2013 #728
You don't even know what the law is like and what changes some people postulate. You are reacting emotionally.

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.
Ironside 50 | 10,934
26 Mar 2013 #729
2- nothing emotional about wanting to keep the status quo.

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

I would seriously study the changes if we were going to vote on them

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

I know more than you think

How would you know what I think?

I don't know as much about it as you because I'm content with the current state

yes because -

I never wanted to have a gun.

So why concern yourself with those who just want a reasonable chance to get a gun?
Lenka 3 | 2,553
26 Mar 2013 #730
Yes it is emotional reaction if you don't know facts.

Not if you think that present legislation works well

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

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.

How would you know what I think?

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

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

Because it would affect me?
Ironside 50 | 10,934
26 Mar 2013 #731
Not if you think that present legislation works well

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

Because it would affect me?

You assume it would affect you. In fact it wouldn't affect you at all as you don't want to own a gun.
Lenka 3 | 2,553
26 Mar 2013 #732
But it would since we are living in the same place. Every law affects all nation in one way or the other.
Ironside 50 | 10,934
26 Mar 2013 #733
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
Polson 5 | 1,771
26 Mar 2013 #734
John Lott does scholarly work and is an expert in his field. That probably means that it's not understandable to you.

You probably missed the part where his work has been discredited by many other experts.
Lenka 3 | 2,553
26 Mar 2013 #735
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

Depends on what requirements there would be to legally own a gun. And any changes affects whole nation- pro or against.
AmerTchr 4 | 201
27 Mar 2013 #736
we just need to leave America alone, it will implode much like the Roman empire.

Oh God, if only your solution would be allowed to take place.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
27 Mar 2013 #737
What do you think about the right to own the guns?

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.

""If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."....... Joseph Stalin

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.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
27 Mar 2013 #738
...cars were not actually designed to end life,

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.

You have just posted an ad for a book, a totally random link,

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.

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

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.
poziomka2 - | 29
27 Mar 2013 #739
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?
Polson 5 | 1,771
27 Mar 2013 #740
Only liberal gun grabbers discredit him and they do so without considering his tremendous amount of information backed by stats and footnotes.

Not only it seems.

In the early 2000s, his work fell into controversy for employing what some academic critics termed "junk science" and for various apparently fatal methodological flaws. Later, he was unable to prove the existence of a study central to his thesis. He was also caught using a fake "sockpuppet" persona to defend his work and attack his critics online. "In most circles, this goes down as fraud," Donald Kennedy, the then-editor of the prestigious journal Science wrote in an editorial. Even Michelle Malkin said Lott had shown an "extensive willingness to deceive to protect and promote his work."

salon/2012/12/21/why_is_the_media_rehabilitating_john_lott

And there's more here:

PW [Lott's co-authors Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley] seriously miscoded their new county dataset in ways that irretrievably undermine every original regression result that they present in their response. As a result, the new PW regressions must simply be disregarded. Correcting PW's empirical mistakes once again shows that the more guns, less crime hypothesis is without credible statistical support.

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

use emotion and name-calling while ignoring facts given him. This is a clinic on how emotion trumps logic.

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.
jasondmzk
27 Mar 2013 #741
why concern yourself with those who just want a reasonable chance to get a gun?

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.
Barney 15 | 1,477
27 Mar 2013 #742
I was hoping you'd do some research on John Lott's book

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.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
27 Mar 2013 #743
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.

The thing is you can't dissociate logic and emotions.

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.

You make a statement then you provide supporting evidence for that statement, posting a random ad does neither of those things.

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

So don't play with guns Zimny!

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
Harry
27 Mar 2013 #744
Cool calm discussions don't usually involve insulting the other side.
jasondmzk
27 Mar 2013 #745
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.
Rysavy 10 | 308
27 Mar 2013 #746
Cool calm discussions don't usually involve insulting the other side.

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.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
27 Mar 2013 #747
How is calling gun grabbers "emotional" an insult when this attribute of emotion is defended by them?
jasondmzk
27 Mar 2013 #748
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?
Barney 15 | 1,477
27 Mar 2013 #749
Ironic for you to say that since you don't provide any evidence in your critiques.

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.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
27 Mar 2013 #750
How about NOT calling them "gun grabbers" to start with?

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

s it because the people that you disagree with make you... emotional?

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.

I asked a few questions and pointed to the disparity in gun deaths between the US and Europe.

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

I have not made any claim that requires supporting evidence

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.


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.