Be a Supporter!

Ask Piers Morgan

  • 3,739 Views
  • 114 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Coop
Coop
  • Member since: Apr. 28, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Writer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 12:01:09 Reply

At 12/29/12 11:53 AM, Insanctuary wrote: No, you clearly do not understand the big picture. You have a very narrow lens on this subject. I suggest you to leave it to those who take this matter seriously and less personally.

Thanks for the advice, take three days to apply this to yourself.


Will it ever end. Yes, all human endeavour is pointless ~ Bill Bailey
News
#StoryShift Author

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 15:26:17 Reply

At 12/29/12 06:14 AM, Feoric wrote:
The bottom one is an AR-15 and the top one is an M15A4 airsoft rifle. While the AR-15 was ultimately defined as an "assault weapon" by the bill, none of these were actually banned, only cosmetic features like pistol grips. The picture is kinda small so I can't make out the details of each gun, but it looks like the M15A4 has a pistol grip, which would be banned under the AWB if renewed.

And case in point. They're both AR-15's and in this particular instance, liberal ignorance on guns shows through.

They are identical guns. Mechanically and practically. Only difference being cosmetic.

BTW, cosmetic things like "pistol grips" do not make something more dangerous. The president's campaign against guns is built on ignorance and cosmetics. Not how dangerous a weapon is. The dangerous weapons are already illegal and banned. Banning adjustable stocks and carrying handles will not make anyone safe.

Emma
Emma
  • Member since: Oct. 29, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Writer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 16:25:42 Reply

Why do Americans need assault rifles at all? Don't they know that less assault rifles means all murders and accidents will end? It makes no logical sense for an average citizen to have a military weapon that can fire a hundred rounds in a minute. That's a hundred dead people in under a minute! And the solution to this problem is MORE guns? Have we learned nothing? From now on, anyone who supports guns is also an advocate of murder!

We don't need guns in Britain. Here is factual evidence.

Assault rifles are the root of all problems in the United States. Most murders are a result of assault rifles.

Ask Piers Morgan


BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 49
Programmer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 16:50:30 Reply

At 12/29/12 04:25 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Assault rifles are the root of all problems in the United States. Most murders are a result of assault rifles.

I know your trolling because the leading is handguns, I jut want to show people your ignorance of firearms


AD BLOCKER | SCRIPT BLOCKER | ACM | CNET | TOM'S HARDWARE
For all you IT news and support.

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 49
Programmer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 17:00:12 Reply

At 12/29/12 04:56 PM, MonthlyVolatile wrote: Spell, "wasted effort".

speaking of "wasted effort" do you have anything better to do than respond to my posts? gun control does not work (in the US anyways) the statistics prove it.


AD BLOCKER | SCRIPT BLOCKER | ACM | CNET | TOM'S HARDWARE
For all you IT news and support.

BBS Signature
Dem0lecule
Dem0lecule
  • Member since: Feb. 17, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 12
Blank Slate
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 17:23:55 Reply

For the first time in month, I totally agree with what Insanctuary said on here. You deserve the right to not getting any more trolling from me, bro.

At 12/29/12 04:25 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:
Assault rifles are the root of all problems in the United States. Most murders are a result of assault rifles.

You seriously need to do a proper fucking research on mass shootings.

And, Sandy Hook perpetrator did not use his .233 rifle to perform the shooting, which his weapon were 9mm & 10mm fucking pistols. He scored 27 kill, plus himself. Want more?

= Virginia Tech shooter used: 9mm Glock 19. Scored 32 kills and 17 wounded.
= Chardon High School, .22 LR Ruger MK III. 3 kills.
= Red Lake, done by Regret, pistols and shotgun, 9 kills.
= Northern Illinois University, pistols and shotgun, 5 kills.
[source] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the _United_States

In fact almost all the mass shootings in 20th/21st history either done with pistols, grenades, shotguns. Exceptional was Oslo shooting, which the only attack used assault rifle.

Ban assault rifle? Sure, go ahead, attackers would continue to use handguns to score more kills.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 49
Programmer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 17:31:57 Reply

At 12/29/12 05:23 PM, dem0lecule wrote: In fact almost all the mass shootings in 20th/21st history either done with pistols, grenades, shotguns. Exceptional was Oslo shooting, which the only attack used assault rifle.

Ban assault rifle? Sure, go ahead, attackers would continue to use handguns to score more kills.

and the fact that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban had a Increase of gun crime by criminals when it was suppose to to decrease crime, the only thing it effected was legal citizens. I would love libtards to explain these right?


AD BLOCKER | SCRIPT BLOCKER | ACM | CNET | TOM'S HARDWARE
For all you IT news and support.

BBS Signature
wwwyzzerdd
wwwyzzerdd
  • Member since: Jun. 16, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Musician
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 17:40:45 Reply

At 12/29/12 05:23 PM, dem0lecule wrote: And, Sandy Hook perpetrator did not use his .233 rifle to perform the shooting

I think for the sake of factual accuracy alone, the little 1st grader who was shot 11 times and whose autopsy report noted that his wounds were consistent with a "long rifle" bullet would beg to differ with your statement.


BBS Signature
Dem0lecule
Dem0lecule
  • Member since: Feb. 17, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 12
Blank Slate
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 17:51:45 Reply

At 12/29/12 05:40 PM, wwwyzzerdd wrote:
At 12/29/12 05:23 PM, dem0lecule wrote: And, Sandy Hook perpetrator did not use his .233 rifle to perform the shooting
I think for the sake of factual accuracy alone, the little 1st grader who was shot 11 times and whose autopsy report noted that his wounds were consistent with a "long rifle" bullet would beg to differ with your statement.

Alright, I mistaken with the .22 he put in the car trunk. Still, number of assault rifles not used in mass shooting wage out the rest.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 19:55:25 Reply

At 12/29/12 03:48 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: pretty sure most weapons have the potential to be dangerous. I think you meant to say the "potentially most deadly" weapons have been banned.

An M-16's sole purpose is to kill.

A semi-auto AR-15, is not. Nor is a 1911...

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 19:58:05 Reply

At 12/29/12 04:25 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Why do Americans need assault rifles at all?

1) Define assault rifle. What makes a weapon an "assault rifle"?

2) Most people don't need, them. They want them. Do people need fast cars? No, they want them, because they're interesting, and they like collecting them.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 49
Programmer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 22:31:36 Reply

At 12/29/12 07:58 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 12/29/12 04:25 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Why do Americans need assault rifles at all?
1) Define assault rifle. What makes a weapon an "assault rifle"?

2) Most people don't need, them. They want them. Do people need fast cars? No, they want them, because they're interesting, and they like collecting them.

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

but people most of the time on;y take cosmetic looks because their idiots (see below)

Ask Piers Morgan


AD BLOCKER | SCRIPT BLOCKER | ACM | CNET | TOM'S HARDWARE
For all you IT news and support.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-30 03:03:45 Reply

At 12/30/12 01:12 AM, Urban-Champion wrote: "pretty sure MOST WEAPONS, NOT ALL OF THEM, have the POTENTIAL to be dangerous"

Of course, but so does a Ferrari. Or a razorblade.

Danger potential is no reason to ban something.

MrPercie
MrPercie
  • Member since: Apr. 5, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 33
Gamer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-30 03:32:57 Reply

At 12/30/12 03:03 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Danger potential is no reason to ban something.

who the fuck needs to defend themselves with a grenade?

sure guns make sense but explosives is pushing it a bit.


"Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven" - John Milton

BBS Signature
Coop
Coop
  • Member since: Apr. 28, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Writer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-30 06:14:54 Reply

At 12/29/12 05:26 PM, Austerity wrote: I hope this doesn't mean you banned him, because that means you lose the argument. This isn't China where you punish people for speaking their views.

No, I banned him for losing his temper and repeatedly trolling users, because we could argue and he could not. Unlike other moderators, I don't ban all that often.

At 12/30/12 03:03 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 12/30/12 01:12 AM, Urban-Champion wrote: "pretty sure MOST WEAPONS, NOT ALL OF THEM, have the POTENTIAL to be dangerous"
Of course, but so does a Ferrari. Or a razorblade.

Danger potential is no reason to ban something.

It was my suggestion that there are greater controls i.e. licensing and training in the safe use of them. I mean, you can buy safety razors, but there is no car you can buy on the open market that is safe to people if you run them over, while you are driving it. That is why we train people how to use them and allow them to for paying road tax and so forth.

What I am suggesting is that there are tighter regulations put in and as a result, people are given more stringent tests to acquire a licence in the first place.


Will it ever end. Yes, all human endeavour is pointless ~ Bill Bailey
News
#StoryShift Author

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-30 13:38:36 Reply

At 12/30/12 03:32 AM, MrPercie wrote: who the fuck needs to defend themselves with a grenade?

sure guns make sense but explosives is pushing it a bit.

No one.

Who the fuck do you know that buys grenades for self-defense, by the way?

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-30 13:40:35 Reply

At 12/30/12 06:14 AM, Coop wrote:
It was my suggestion that there are greater controls i.e. licensing and training in the safe use of them. I mean, you can buy safety razors, but there is no car you can buy on the open market that is safe to people if you run them over, while you are driving it. That is why we train people how to use them and allow them to for paying road tax and so forth.

What I am suggesting is that there are tighter regulations put in and as a result, people are given more stringent tests to acquire a licence in the first place.

1) Guns have safeties as well
2) There are already strict licencing and controls regarding gun ownership and training in it's use.

Coop
Coop
  • Member since: Apr. 28, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Writer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-30 14:58:08 Reply

At 12/30/12 01:40 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 12/30/12 06:14 AM, Coop wrote: It was my suggestion that there are greater controls i.e. licensing and training in the safe use of them. I mean, you can buy safety razors, but there is no car you can buy on the open market that is safe to people if you run them over, while you are driving it. That is why we train people how to use them and allow them to for paying road tax and so forth.

What I am suggesting is that there are tighter regulations put in and as a result, people are given more stringent tests to acquire a licence in the first place.
1) Guns have safeties as well

I am aware of that, but a button or catch that you can engage / disengage easily does not make it safe. Safer, but not entirely safe. My 18-month old nephew could probably figure out how to take the safety off, which is why things need to be slightly more advanced, in my opinion.

2) There are already strict licencing and controls regarding gun ownership and training in it's use.

Is this in every state? The only reason that I ask is that opposite Fenway Park, I'm aware of one massive advertising board that advertises "We sell guns - No ID required, no background checks - Criminals & Terrorists Welcome". From that, I'm not sure if it's advertising, or just being sarcastic. Is the sign telling the truth? If so, these sort of loopholes need to be closed, which would be tighter controls on guns and so forth.


Will it ever end. Yes, all human endeavour is pointless ~ Bill Bailey
News
#StoryShift Author

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-30 15:01:55 Reply

At 12/30/12 02:58 PM, Coop wrote:
I am aware of that, but a button or catch that you can engage / disengage easily does not make it safe. Safer, but not entirely safe. My 18-month old nephew could probably figure out how to take the safety off, which is why things need to be slightly more advanced, in my opinion.

Responsible, safe gun owners are very well aware of this. That's why they don't keep their guns loaded and/or keep them in safes where an 18-month old cannot get to them.

Is this in every state? The only reason that I ask is that opposite Fenway Park, I'm aware of one massive advertising board that advertises "We sell guns - No ID required, no background checks - Criminals & Terrorists Welcome". From that, I'm not sure if it's advertising, or just being sarcastic. Is the sign telling the truth? If so, these sort of loopholes need to be closed, which would be tighter controls on guns and so forth.

I'd guess it's being sarcastic. I'm not aware of gun laws in every state, but I'd be willing to bet in Boston, things are fairly strict.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 49
Programmer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-30 19:59:59 Reply

At 12/30/12 05:45 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: and i don't think anyone is trying to argue the existence of responsible gun owners, the question is, how to we compensate for the irresponsible gun owners?

the the for every 20 responsible gun owners their is one irresponsible owner. thats relatively low maybe some extra training courses but thats all we really need.


AD BLOCKER | SCRIPT BLOCKER | ACM | CNET | TOM'S HARDWARE
For all you IT news and support.

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 49
Programmer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-30 22:05:48 Reply

ahh he addressed it apparently if gun laws don't get better in the US he will just go back to england. dont know if its sarcasm or not, due to the fact that I cant tell.


AD BLOCKER | SCRIPT BLOCKER | ACM | CNET | TOM'S HARDWARE
For all you IT news and support.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-30 22:21:40 Reply

At 12/30/12 05:45 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: and i don't think anyone is trying to argue the existence of responsible gun owners, the question is, how to we compensate for the irresponsible gun owners?

They shouldn't have guns.

Coop
Coop
  • Member since: Apr. 28, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Writer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-31 05:14:26 Reply

At 12/30/12 10:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 12/30/12 05:45 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: and i don't think anyone is trying to argue the existence of responsible gun owners, the question is, how to we compensate for the irresponsible gun owners?
They shouldn't have guns.

Then in that case, I would like to ask you how you propose to legislate for and enforce this? I'm arguing for the same thing, but it's your country, so you've got a better knowledge of how things work than I have.


Will it ever end. Yes, all human endeavour is pointless ~ Bill Bailey
News
#StoryShift Author

BBS Signature
MrPercie
MrPercie
  • Member since: Apr. 5, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 33
Gamer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-31 05:19:26 Reply

At 12/30/12 01:38 PM, LemonCrush wrote: No one.

Who the fuck do you know that buys grenades for self-defense, by the way?

No one

just trying to point out that maybe not all weapons should be easily accessible to the public.

Although people still have been able to get explosives with an explosives license and we all haven't been killed in explosions so I guess I am overreacting.


"Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven" - John Milton

BBS Signature
Emma
Emma
  • Member since: Oct. 29, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Writer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-31 16:14:51 Reply

At 12/29/12 07:58 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 12/29/12 04:25 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Why do Americans need assault rifles at all?
1) Define assault rifle. What makes a weapon an "assault rifle"?

Any weapon that looks scary and is not a handgun or shotgun.

2) Most people don't need, them. They want them. Do people need fast cars? No, they want them, because they're interesting, and they like collecting them.

Are you suggesting that hobbies are more valuable than human life, sir?


BBS Signature