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?


convex 20 | 3,978
20 Oct 2010 #91
Are there different laws regulating sidearms and long guns? Are the two differentiated like they are here or are all "guns" just lumped together?

They're categorized separately. The laws here are very restrictive when it comes to personal ownership. On the other hand, there are shooting ranges where you can rent pistols and rifles :)

Strange.
trener zolwia 1 | 939
20 Oct 2010 #92
Please think of the answers and then, again, tell us why fierarms should not be in Polish citizens hands?

Neither the gun-grabbers nor their weak-minded, gun-fearing blind followers care one bit about things like logic, reason, facts and statistics or reality. All they know is 'guns bad'. They're like unthinking childish robots and one can never reason with such dupes. This is why they should be removed from the conversation and ignored.

On the other hand, there are shooting ranges where you can rent pistols and rifles :)

Well this is good. At least peeps can be exposed to guns to some degree and see they're not as scary as they've been made out to be. :s

I've long said that gun safety should be a course taught in schools here. To remove some of the stigma and fear and promote safety... to remove some of the mystery so a kid finding a gun isn't so intrigued by it...

The gun-fearing folks as well as the grabbers gasp at such a suggestion. The very last thing they want is to remove the anti-gun stigma they have worked so hard to engineer in society.
Marek11111 9 | 816
20 Oct 2010 #93
OldPolka, I own several hand and hunting guns and I shoot them regularly and in United States people have right to own fire arms it is in constitution it is a right that has not yet been taken away by government. We know when government bands gun ownership the crime rate go higher as only criminals poses guns and they know it and the media is not reporting truth in United States it just spits propaganda from left to right.

Militia is needed as is stated in constitution we the people have right to protect our self from enemy foreign and domestic.
convex 20 | 3,978
20 Oct 2010 #94
Well this is good. At least peeps can be exposed to guns to some degree and see they're not as scary as they've been made out to be. :s

But...not many people are interested in them. Poles really don't seem to care much for guns.

To remove some of the stigma and fear and promote safety... to remove some of the mystery so a kid finding a gun isn't so intrigued by it...

Absolutely. Needed in the US, wouldn't make much sense in Poland.
trener zolwia 1 | 939
20 Oct 2010 #95
But...not many people are interested in them. Poles really don't seem to care much for guns.

Because they have been largely shielded from them. Whereas here guns are intertwined in our history and culture, society, in our very Constitution.

Btw, the PA Constitution takes protecting private gun ownership even a step further than our national one. The PA Con states the one's right to own arms "shall not be [so much as] questioned". Period. I always throw this in the face of the grabbers, reminding them that their even questioning our right to keep guns is a violation of my constitutional rights. Lol. They hate this. ;)
George8600 10 | 636
20 Oct 2010 #96
Might genetics have a cause on the troubles caused by guns? After all genetics undoubtedly affects education, income, and IQ to a certain extent...

Prison statistics:

The racial composition of the US prison and jail population as of 2009 was 31.44% White American (non-Hispanic), 20.29% Hispanic, 42.21% African American (non-Hispanic), and 6.06% Other (American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander American, and Multiracial American).

Population statistics:

The racial composition of the US population as of 2009 was 80.79% White American (65.60% non-Hispanic and 15.19% Hispanic), 10.84% African American (12.22% non-Hispanic and 0.62% Hispanic), 4.45% Asian American.
convex 20 | 3,978
20 Oct 2010 #97
Might genetics have a cause on the troubles caused by guns? After all genetics undoubtedly affects education, income, and IQ to a certain extent...

Now show us the same stats for Russia. Genetics has less of a role than society.

I'm still under the impression that Poland should take the Swiss approach.
trener zolwia 1 | 939
20 Oct 2010 #98
Might genetics have a cause on the troubles caused by guns? After all genetics undoubtedly affects education, income, and IQ to a certain extent...

Yep. Gotta love all that 'rich diversity'...
nott 3 | 594
20 Oct 2010 #99
if everyone will own a gun crime will go down to lowest in history.

From 'The Making of Modern Britain' by Andrew Marr. On Edwardian Britain:

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

Simple comparison between USA homicide rate and Polish homicide rate shows that USA model is not viable.

statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
#1 District of Columbia: 31.2
#2 Alaska: 20

some of the comments:
Odd how Washington DC, with it's unconstitutional handgun ban, leads the nation.
Alaska near top, mostly b/c of suicides in Native Americans.

Note the difference between DC and Alaska.

convex:Talking about the partisan forces in WW2

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

The Germans wanted to create a purely German zone at the eastern border of the General Government. They started with cleansing Zamojszczyzna, which resulted in quick organising of local armed self-defence, opposing the expulsions and retaliating on already settled (armed) Germans. The scale of resistance caused the action to be stopped. It's a huge chapter in the history of the Polish underground.

And: Partyzancka Republika PiƄczowska, in 1944 spanned over 100 sq km free from occupying forces.
pinczow.pl/page.php?id=20&s=1

More Poles would end up being shot in the back of their head

People with guns don't get shot in the back of the head. They got to be tied up first. The problem with resistance against the Soviets was that the Red Army was to be considered an ally. Much of the armed Polish underground gave up weapons and were sent far East. After the 'Western Treason' it was a bit late to recover the strength. Still, the armed opposition lasted for years on, and was the main reason that Poland retained land ownership and freedom of religion. If the Soviets had tried to take land from peasants, there would've been no 'communism' in Poland, most probably.

But...not many people are interested in them. Poles really don't seem to care much for guns.

You don't care much for what you can't really have. Polish gun laws are ridiculous. From what I remember, you can eventually get a permission for a handgun to protect your house, yet, by the law, it has to be locked safely at all times, unloaded. The police, before shooting at the criminal, have to shout a shooting warning (Policja, uwaga, strzelam!) three times, then shoot in the air, then aim at the legs.

About the interest in guns you'd have to live for a stretch in the already mentioned Zamojszczyzna. And make good friends there too. My grandpa had a cavalry carbine, I was playing with it as a kid, and once my uncle took me in the woods for some real shooting. My cousin exchanged it later for a Parabellum and a small sack of ammo, and then sold it for a bottle of vodka. Or two, could be... The price should suggest you the availability of firearms, not the level of interest. If an old barn caught fire, the fire brigade did not approach for fear of stashed ammo and grenades, they only protected the neighbouring buildings.

Zamojszczyzna was exceptionally littered with guns, must be said, but Poles are not gun-shy, just disarmed. Except those who read Wyborcza to lunch.
convex 20 | 3,978
20 Oct 2010 #100
From what I remember, you can eventually get a permission for a handgun to protect your house, yet, by the law, it has to be locked safely at all times, unloaded. The police, before shooting at the criminal, have to shout a shooting warning (Policja, uwaga, strzelam!) three times, then shoot in the air, then aim at the legs.

A handgun to protect your house is almost unheard of.

Regarding the Police, they can shoot when they feel threatened.
nott 3 | 594
20 Oct 2010 #101
A handgun to protect your house is almost unheard of.

That's why I said 'eventually'.

Regarding the Police, they can shoot when they feel threatened.

Must've changed lately, then.
f stop 25 | 2,513
20 Oct 2010 #102
I don't think that US founding fathers meant to give us a constitutional right to run around with guns. I believe the second amendment, very poorly phrased, was meant to refer to militia only:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
nott 3 | 594
20 Oct 2010 #103
I don't think that our founding fathers

Even if, the world didn't start with the Founding Fathers. Arms possession has been a natural right of citizens since the dawn of time. Seems it was in the Tzarist Russia when the first limitations took place. Like, after the 1863 Uprising firearms were confiscated in Poland, for the first time ever.
trener zolwia 1 | 939
20 Oct 2010 #104
Don't believe her false argument, Nott...

I don't think that US founding fathers meant to give us a constitutional right to run around with guns.

Sure they did. That's exactly what they meant. Back then everyone owned guns, it was common, no biggie.

I believe the second amendment, very poorly phrased, was meant to refer to militia only:

Tired and poorly contrived argument by the gun-fearing folks.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And keep in mind that a "militia" back then consisted of your average farmer who could be rounded up to fight when needed. These militias were not very organized so were really just common folks who owned guns. Without them owning guns privately there would be no militia.
nott 3 | 594
20 Oct 2010 #105
Don't believe her false argument, Nott...

I don't, really, just being polite.

As you say: 'back then everyone owned guns, it was common', so that's how it is to be interpreted, in the historical context. They just confirmed the natural law, in case somebody in the unimaginable future tried to disarm people.

I have an air-gun... :)
Marek11111 9 | 816
20 Oct 2010 #106
f stop:
I don't think that US founding fathers meant to give us a constitutional right to run around with guns.

Good thing you are not sitting on supreme court or we all be domed.
If you do not have gun and the criminal knows it you are more likely to become victim.
pgtx 30 | 3,156
20 Oct 2010 #107
you're all in this thread so zacietrzewieni that i wouldn't give any of you a gun... soon enough the forum would be empty....lol ;)
trener zolwia 1 | 939
20 Oct 2010 #108
They just confirmed the natural law, in case somebody in the unimaginable future tried to disarm people.

Funny how they had the foresight to head off future gun-grabbing. See, even they knew that the first thing tyrants do is seize the weapons of the people so they are rendered defenseless. How come those old guys in powdered wigs and funny hats so long ago could see this but Libs today can't?

Good thing you are not sitting on supreme court or we all be domed.
If you do not have gun and the criminal knows it you are more likely to become victim.

So true. x2
nott 3 | 594
20 Oct 2010 #109
you're all in this thread so zacietrzewieni that i wouldn't give any of you a gun... soon enough the forum would be empty....

Nope. Just, the truth would prevail :)

lol ;)

Right, lol. Gun-toting freaks are not necessarily out of their minds :)
convex 20 | 3,978
20 Oct 2010 #110
Funny how they had the foresight to head off future gun-grabbing. See, even they knew that the first thing tyrants do is seize the weapons of the people so they are rendered defenseless. How come those old guys in powdered wigs and funny hats so long ago could see this but Libs today can't?

But, the only problem is....in Poland, that right is not enshrined in the constitution :(
another_disc - | 3
20 Oct 2010 #111
It is not a problem in Poland because criminality is much lower than in the USA.
nott 3 | 594
20 Oct 2010 #112
The right to own knives is neither.
convex 20 | 3,978
20 Oct 2010 #113
But, if it's not enshrined as a right, it only takes simple legislation to make it illegal, which is the case here.

No legislation against kitchen knives BTW.
another_disc - | 3
20 Oct 2010 #114
It is not illegal, either. Most people simply don't see the need to own guns.
convex 20 | 3,978
20 Oct 2010 #115
It is not illegal, either.

It's illegal. If I were to place my hi-power into the trunk of my car and cross the border and get stopped, I would be thrown in jail.
trener zolwia 1 | 939
20 Oct 2010 #117
No legislation against kitchen knives BTW.

Didn't someone here mention a movement to only permit blunt nose kitchen knives? Maybe this was in UK?

I have an air-gun... :)

Me too. I use it to get the darn squirrels off the bird feeder. I give it one or two pumps so it only stings them without hurting them. But they still come back. >:
f stop 25 | 2,513
20 Oct 2010 #118
Sure they did. That's exactly what they meant.

Sure they didn't. Read up about it. Especially the changes in wording that ammendment went through.
trener zolwia 1 | 939
20 Oct 2010 #119
Read up about it.

Oh I have. Extensively.

the changes in wording that ammendment went through.

That they felt the need to single out guns and include them as an amendment tells us how important they felt guns were. No other object is so mentioned in our Bill of Rights.

They didn't feel the need to included a passage about artificial legs for turtles, now did they? :s
nott 3 | 594
20 Oct 2010 #120
No legislation against kitchen knives BTW.

Despite the constitution saying nothing about it. But you're right, of course, about the ease of banning guns in Poland. And it is true, that few people really need them now. Like, say, chainsaws. Or strong acids. Or piano strings. Or baseball bats (illegal, actually). Or padlocks on a chain. Funny thing, how many completely legal items can become deadly weapons in hands with purpose. And then you can call 999. If you can.

It is not a problem in Poland because criminality is much lower than in the USA.

You know, I was a fan of American films, as many Poles in those times. And I watched some US stupid horrors too, sweet blondie running from a werewolf, and, God is great, there's a car left in the woods, and she gets into it, and turns the... fkn hell!! there's no key!!!

Now that's a shocker, for an American. In Poland, it's 'stupid blondie'. What does it say about the crime level, this indirect information?

I lived in a relatively quiet place. One autumn the postman didn't show up, they found him half a year later, after the spring thaw washed out a thin layer of dirt. You'd think that the local newspaper would mention it, a short note at least. It didn't.


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.