The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / Law  % width posts: 1,651

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


ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
19 Oct 2010 #61
Before the Supreme Court's ruling this past June, Chicago had the most strict gun laws anywhere. Families could not possess a gun even in their own homes. Since only criminals had the guns, the murder rate in Chicago (mostly in 5 different neighborhoods) was sky high.

If honest citizens cannot own guns than only criminals and the government will have them. That's not logical or safe.

There is a reason why Hitler, Mao and Stalin (among other dictators) first confiscated guns when they took power. Those of you who support gun bans should ask yourself why?
nott 3 | 594
19 Oct 2010 #62
The problem with that chart is that suicides are included...distorts things a bit.

Actually, this chart shows that guns in private hands are as dangerous as any other tool, no more. The relation is nicely linear. Twice the guns, twice the deaths, all along. Just like anything, might be expected. If the popular private gun ownership was inherently more dangerous than, say, chainsaw ownership, we'd see some bending up of the line on the right hand side.

The USA are an exception, so there's something going on there. Now I'd like to see similar statistics, but with the US states compared.

When I was in Poland, I observed how they act when they get really mad at each other after having too much to drink. With guns, I can imagine how those very lively "disputes" would end up.

And how do they end up with knives, choppers, axes, pitchforks, hammers, screwdrivers easily available? Every kitchen has a set of sharp pointed knives, often in full display on special stands, and every house has a drawer full of sharp tools.
kondzior 12 | 1,245
19 Oct 2010 #63
I am all for rights to own guns. Criminal can acquire a gun anyway, without much trouble. Or some mental types, see the last PIS incident

But if there was a big possibility that passerby you are trying to rob takes out a gun and starts shooting, now bandits would be affraid to go out in the night...
trener zolwia 1 | 939
19 Oct 2010 #64
The USA are an exception, so there's something going on there.

And I already addressed just what this something is. Gotta love all that 'rich diversity'...

Every kitchen has a set of sharp pointed knives, often in full display on special stands, and every house has a drawer full of sharp tools.

Clearly these should be next on the banny (ban+nanny) list.

But if there was a big possibility that passerby you are trying to rob takes out a gun and starts shooting, now bandits would be affraid to go out in the night...

As it should be.
nott 3 | 594
19 Oct 2010 #65
And I already addressed just what this something is. Gotta love all that 'rich diversity'...

Yeah, but it was more like a private opinion. I might agree with it, but it's good to have some hard data on your side. Or these data may suggest some other reasons.

nott:Every kitchen has a set of sharp pointed knives, often in full display on special stands, and every house has a drawer full of sharp tools.

Clearly these should be next on the banny (ban+nanny) list.

In the UK there was a serious proposition that all kitchen knives should have rounded tips. I am not making it up.

But if there was a big possibility that passerby you are trying to rob takes out a gun and starts shooting, now bandits would be affraid to go out in the night...

And this might help with the 'urban black kids' problem too. Now they are the kings of the street just by holding a piece of iron. If anybody else, white, black or yellow, was likely to carry same thing, then they'd need something more to make up for the perceived inferiority, social injustice, or whatever. It's easy to wave a gun at an unarmed big guy, but not so if a granny behind may point a gun at you too. Or two grannies. Trembling hands and all.
David_18 68 | 982
19 Oct 2010 #66
What do you think about the right to own the guns?

Good idea!
szczeciniak 4 | 92
19 Oct 2010 #67
from BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY

LICENSE-A permission, usu. revocable, to commit some act that would otherwise be
unlawful.
SO we need license to drive? because driving act is "unlawful"
it is unlawful to have gun(s) and license it give the legal right of excuse to be lawful
or we dont need gun license? but we need license! to act(shooting, firing because that act is unlawful)
would that make it like this: it is legal to own a gun? but unlawful to use it?

interesting????
Ironside 50 | 11,061
20 Oct 2010 #68
I would, people should have the right to defend themselves, criminals and morons should have a right to extinct.
kondzior 12 | 1,245
20 Oct 2010 #69
@Szczeciniak
English can indeed be cofusing. On the other hand, in Polish it is "Prawo jazdy", literally "the right to drive". So in PL it would be a "right to own a gun" (prawo do posiadania broni)
szczeciniak 4 | 92
20 Oct 2010 #70
English can indeed be cofusing

yes , it tends to be. and yet it is the most advance language ( in ligalise anyway)
and yes "prawo do posiadania broni" is correct,
is it illegal to own it?? and unlawful to use it? you need a licenses for shooting (dzika swinja)
so i need to have " prawo do posiadania broni and pozwolenie do odszaczalu?
that makes two licenses or pozwolenia!! yes???

ps.
the last time we went hunting in Poland, we were trying to get a bear! but that! one was unbearable, lol
jwojcie 2 | 763
20 Oct 2010 #71
I'm against it. It is good the way it is. The problem with guns is that they are to easy to kill with. The problem with "normal" people is that everyone is going mad from time to time. Bind those two together and you have this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide

Of course such arguments:

""A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

Guns are the last line of individual freedom.

Are valid to some extent, on the other hand usuall it is better to rather give your wallet than try to shot a burglar (who usually is better trained in using weapon than average person)..

Last but not least: imagine what would happen if Poles had free access to guns during communist era. Imagine what would happen if all those peace protests ended with gun shots by some madman? There would be bloodshed and more bloodshed... After 45' there was a lot of guns, militia and open resistance toward soviets, guess what it didn't help much against a few milion army of trained soldiers. Anyone thinking that guns in citizens hands would help against regular army in case of some war is dreaming. It can only prolong inevitable.
Ironside 50 | 11,061
20 Oct 2010 #72
not against a foreign invasion maybe but for internal resistance would be sufficient

(who usually is better trained in using weapon than average person)..

urban myths then again its up to average person to be prepared .................
convex 20 | 3,978
20 Oct 2010 #73
Anyone thinking that guns in citizens hands would help against regular army in case of some war is dreaming. It can only prolong inevitable.

It seemed to have worked in Finland, Yugoslavia, and it's most definitely working in Iraq. A trained citizens militia is the cheapest way to make an enemy think twice before attempting to occupy. That's obviously still on people's minds here.
Marek11111 9 | 816
20 Oct 2010 #74
if everyone will own a gun crime will go down to lowest in history.
jwojcie 2 | 763
20 Oct 2010 #75
urban myths then again its up to average person to be prepared

Yeah... and average person usually has it locked on a shell till goes mad and shot a neighbour over dog poo...

It seemed to have worked in Finland, Yugoslavia, and it's most definitely working in Iraq. A trained citizens militia is the cheapest way to make an enemy think twice before attempting to occupy.

Finland - not really valid example because their defence were led by regular army (if we are talking about Winter War) though the best sniper was hunters. But we can deal with that by creating National Defence... Anyone wants to shot, just sign in and shot on military training ground...

Yugoslavia - risky example, Serbs regular army managed with militia quite efectively. The only outcome of militia fighthing was aggravation of conflict and ethnic cleansing

Iraq - the only example I could agree with but only because the invaders army was to small for occuping purpose and was mitigated by the fact that its origin was states with some kind of democracy and strong public opinion... Besides after all americans stayed for quite long time...

So back to Yugoslavia example, it in fact shows quite good why it would be entirely inefective and dangerous for country such us Poland to use militia after military fail of an army. Because in a such hipothetical scenario we would be dealing not with thousands but milions of soldiers. The fun with guns and forests ends when occupier starts ethnic cleansing.... The perfect example of this are Boer Wars
Ironside 50 | 11,061
20 Oct 2010 #76
Yeah... and average person usually has it locked on shell till goes mad and shot a neighbour over dogs poo...

nanny complex eh?
jwojcie 2 | 763
20 Oct 2010 #79
Simple comparison between USA homicide rate and Polish homicide rate shows that USA model is not viable. As simple as that. We can argue all night how bigger weapon possesion per capita would help Poland in case of invasion, but in the peace time there is really nothing to argue about. The numbers are enough argument. Besides, it is not like you cann't have weapon in Poland. The thing is that it is hard to get a gun, you should among other thing bring papers from a doctor that you are not mentally ill...
convex 20 | 3,978
20 Oct 2010 #80
Yugoslavia - risky example, Serbs regular army managed with militia quite efectively. The only outcome of militia fighthing was aggravation of conflict and ethnic cleansing

Talking about the partisan forces in WW2

Iraq - the only example I could agree with but only because the invaders army was to small for occuping purpose and was mitigated by the fact that its origin was states with some kind of democracy and strong public opinion... Besides after all americans stayed for quite long time...

America is still there. The only reason that things are stabilizing is that it was agreed that power would be shared with the groups resisting occupation.

Because in a such hipothetical scenario we would be dealing not with thousands but milions of soldiers. The fun with guns and forests ends when occupier starts ethnic cleansing.... The perfect example of this are Boer Wars

When the occupier begins ethnic cleansing, they usually do it as an objective to beginning the hostilities in the first place.

No, simple comparison between USA homicide rate and Polish homicide rate shows that USA model is not viable.

By the same token, The Jamaican model is not viable :)
jwojcie 2 | 763
20 Oct 2010 #81
Talking about the partisan forces in WW2

Then agreed, success there, but imposible in Poland given Polish flat terrain.

When the occupier begins ethnic cleansing, they usually do it as an objective to beginning the hostilities in the first place.

It is the other way around. They start ethnic cleansing after militia activities are becoming to be a problem. British bring this tool to modern welfare in South Africa.

By the same token, The Jamaican model is not viable :)

Well isn't it a kind of a fallen country? Anyway if we want to have the closest comparision then maybe we should use USA vs UK? Still not easy weapon possesion equals lower homicide rate
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
20 Oct 2010 #82
jwojcie

Your link in post #72 shows a homicide rate. That's because criminals who illegally own guns shoot people who don't own guns, exceptions duly noted. Why do you want only the criminals and the government to own guns? You prove the point that an armed citizenry

is the best form of peace keeping.

it is better to rather give your wallet than try to shot a burglar

Not in my house, besides sometimes perpetrators shoot you anyway. Giving in to crime is not a very high principle.

what would happen if Poles had free access to guns during communist era

How about if Poles had more access to guns during the World War II occupation? Can you answer this question; why do all dictators confiscate guns from their citizens?
convex 20 | 3,978
20 Oct 2010 #83
Your link in post #72 shows a homicide rate. That's because criminals who illegally own guns shoot people who don't own guns, exceptions duly noted. Why do you want only the criminals and the government to own guns? You prove the point that an armed citizenry
is the best form of peace keeping.

The idea would be to remove the majority of guns in circulation. The only way that would work would be on a global level, which will never happen.

Poland should have a citizens militia. Cheaper than a professional infantry division, and a whole lot more effective.
jwojcie 2 | 763
20 Oct 2010 #84
How about if Poles had more access to guns during the World War II occupation? Can you answer this question; why do all dictators confiscate guns from their citizens?

More Poles would end up being shot in the back of their head instead of looking for food on Siberia, and Germans would build more concentration camps... Sorry, but in serious war militia only adds wood to the fire. But in case when occupier is aiming mass murder from the begining I agree it would be better to die with a gun in hand. But one never know what are intentions of occupier...

Why do you want only the criminals and the government to own guns?

Because statistics shows that the more guns per household, the more violent crime is...
I have no problem with someone who shot a bulglar. After all, you can have a gun in Poland if you prove that you need it and you prove that you are not mentally ill.

Poland should have a citizens militia. Cheaper than a professional infantry division, and a whole lot more effective.

Since this year we have, it is called National Forces or something similar. It is building slowly. Initially it suppose to reach 10000.

Anyway, nice talk though different opinions. It is time for some pizza, bye :-)
trener zolwia 1 | 939
20 Oct 2010 #85
Someone clear up for me the private gun ownership situation in Poland. Cannot a private citizen own guns for hunting? Can they keep sidearms in their homes? Does anyone have a permit to carry? Is target shooting a sport there? Are there no gun shops where one can buy guns and ammo? Any guns at all in society? What are the penalties if one runs afoul of the no gun laws?

What exactly is the situation presently?
convex 20 | 3,978
20 Oct 2010 #86
Cannot a private citizen own guns for hunting?

It's in the archives.

But the condensed version, it's incredibly restrictive. Interestingly enough, the homicide rate here per capita is the same as our neighbors down south, who can own, buy, and carry weapons without much of a hitch. For instance, I can carry my hi-power to work in Prague, concealed of course.
trener zolwia 1 | 939
20 Oct 2010 #87
Are there different laws regulating sidearms and long guns? Are the two differentiated like they are here or are all "guns" just lumped together?
Marek11111 9 | 816
20 Oct 2010 #88
jwojcie If you quote me I would ask you to not put YOUR words in my posts , you got that chump.
OlaPolka - | 1
20 Oct 2010 #89
I'm a Polish citizen and I am definitely pro firearms in Poland.

Now my questions are:
-Did anyone of you, who are against the guns being easier accessible in Poland, have EVER shoot one???
-Do you undesrtand why Americans so firmly protect their 2nd amendment?
-Do you believe in everything that medias and priests say?
-Do you know who are Militiamen and what role they played in American history?

Please think of the answers and then, again, tell us why fierarms should not be in Polish citizens hands?
pgtx 30 | 3,156
20 Oct 2010 #90
Please think of the answers and then, again, tell us why fierarms should not be in Polish citizens hands?

are you a teacher or something?


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.