Does Poland need to liberalize its gun ownership laws?

The right to own firearms has stirred strong emotions for years and remains a topic of much debate both in Poland and around the world. For some, it represents freedom and the ability to defend oneself; for others, it means an increased risk of violence and a greater sense of insecurity in society.

From this article you will learn:

• Who would be affected by potential gun legalization?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of broader access to firearms?
• Why Polish society may not be ready for liberalization.

Who would be affected by legalization?
Before we consider arguments for and against, it’s worth answering the question: who could benefit from the right to own firearms if the laws were liberalized? The most obvious group would be adult citizens, since in Poland adulthood is reached at the age of 18. However, there’s a question of whether this is the right age to allow the purchase of firearms. Some believe that an 18-year-old, despite being legally an adult, may not yet be mature enough to handle weapons responsibly.

Another important factor is the criterion of having no criminal record. In theory, the right to own firearms should apply to individuals who have not been convicted of serious crimes. Exclusions should mainly cover those convicted of offenses that threaten public safety, as well as people who have served long sentences. In practice, however, there’s an issue – control systems and psychological evaluations can also be prone to errors or even corruption, raising concerns about the effectiveness of such safeguards.

Disadvantages of broader access to firearms

Liberalizing gun ownership laws carries serious risks. First of all, firearms would become more common in everyday life, naturally increasing the number of situations in which they could be misused. Each additional weapon in the hands of a citizen means a greater likelihood of incidents threatening safety, whether through crime or accidents.

Another significant issue is the risk of more accidents. Even in well-organized societies, there are cases of carelessness, recklessness, or simple human error. As the number of firearms in circulation increases, so does the likelihood of self-inflicted injuries, children getting shot, or unintended victims. It’s worth remembering that these incidents don’t always stem from ill intent—often they’re the result of inexperience or poor habits.

The social and economic costs also cannot be overlooked. Crimes and accidents involving firearms generate enormous expenses for medical care, emergency services, investigations, and court proceedings. In the United States, it’s estimated that the costs associated with gun-related incidents even exceed those for treating obesity. Moreover, taxpayers bear much of this burden, which can lead to pressure to raise taxes to fund additional preventive measures.

Another important argument against liberalization is the lack of a gun ownership culture in Poland. The country has relatively few shooting ranges, and even law enforcement often has limited opportunities for practice. Responsible firearm handling requires regular training and education, which must be widely accessible—something Poland currently lacks.

Are there any advantages?

Despite numerous concerns, supporters of liberalization also point to potential benefits. One argument is that over time, the number of accidents could decrease. The more people are exposed to firearms, the greater the chance they will learn to handle them responsibly and safely. It can be assumed that after an initial increase in incidents, the situation might stabilize and public awareness could grow.

It’s also often emphasized that access to firearms doesn’t necessarily mean chaos or a “Wild West” scenario. A good example is Switzerland, where guns are widely available, yet firearm-related crime rates remain low. However, it’s important to note that this results from many factors, such as a high level of social trust, the absence of deep divisions, and a well-established gun ownership culture—elements currently lacking in Poland.

The right to own firearms is a topic worth analyzing from multiple perspectives, but in Poland’s case, the arguments against liberalization seem to prevail. The lack of proper infrastructure, insufficient education, high social costs, and clear public opposition suggest that the country is not yet ready for such far-reaching changes. Although it cannot be ruled out that the situation could change in the future, today the liberalization of gun ownership laws does not appear either necessary or safe.