Be a Supporter!

Ask Piers Morgan

  • 2,971 Views
  • 141 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Insanctuary
Insanctuary
  • Member since: Dec. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 11:00:06 Reply

At 12/29/12 10:38 AM, Coop wrote: I merely suggested reducing the number of guns that are in circulation...

How do you suppose for this to occur? How about we switch this up a level, and say, reduce the amount of children who are abducted. It's impossible because the problems are in a GREY AREA, you sod. The same goes for the black markets and underground trades. Besides, if we are still living in fear when it comes to the child sex ring leaders and the leaders of drug cartels -- we certainly aren't going to do anything about the off-marketing of weaponry.

I may not agree with the second amendment,

All it does is state a flexible freedom. Guns are a part of that freedom and are imperative for survival. The guns aren't doing the killing. It's the fucking idiots who think they own this world.

I'm not making a social declaration, merely a statistical one - less guns, equals less chances of one ending up in the wrong hands. If you're too much of a hot headed idiot to realise it, then you're merely adhering to international stereotyping.

Idiot. What does taking away guns from the citzens have anything to do with the outlaws? Jesus, what world do you live in?

I think it should be "look", rather than "luck"

Typo. C:

The question I have is, does this take place for everyone who purchases a gun legally in the United States?

It should be mandatory for people to not only know how to use a gun, but to know that death and killing isn't something you experience in games. The damned social media is always sensoring the gruesome details that a lot of people don't really understand the genuine experience of murder. They become desensitized and this clashes with their negative emotions in their damned fallouts. Which leads to them losing their mind and losing sight for everything they once stood for.

Context is everything, you've taken mine as a few fields away.

No, you clearly do not understand what you are talking about. You're an idiot.

Ask Piers Morgan


You do not make examples, you make excuses; you do not solve problems, you shift problems; you do not stand behind your statements, you stand behind your stasis.

Urban-Champion
Urban-Champion
  • Member since: Feb. 25, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Gamer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 11:05:17 Reply

At 12/29/12 11:00 AM, Insanctuary wrote:
No, you clearly do not understand what you are talking about. You're an idiot.

Strangely enough you're the only one that seems to think that. You just like to disagree with people, all logical/illogical argumentative reasoning they give you aside, for the sake of spiting them as much as you can.

And honestly, I don't understand how this issue is so "black and white" despite all logical evidence that it doesn't need to be like that at all. Can't we think between the lines instead of "ALL FOR GUNS" and "ALL OPPOSED TO GUNS"

Insanctuary
Insanctuary
  • Member since: Dec. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 11:14:34 Reply

At 12/29/12 11:05 AM, Urban-Champion wrote: Strangely enough you're the only one that seems to think that.

That's because nearly everyone wants to be right when they are unimaginably wrong. I state my points and I do well to make it clear when I am wrong or the other is wrong. If you don't refute my point, I will call you out on it. If you resort to non-statements, I will tell you to challenge my position before you turn to assumptions. I have my ways to make things clearl, it isn't me that makes things more difficult than they already are. People are just emotionally complicated in this world. Which explains a lot why I am a prick.

Can't we think between the lines instead of "ALL FOR GUNS" and "ALL OPPOSED TO GUNS"

We are thinking between the lines, you dolt. What part of ''we should moderately control the gun output that way we still have guns, but not as much, which would lead to fewer casualties... right...?'' do you not understand? I've already stated my point. Coop is a retard. Why? Because he thinks we have ways to somehow know where every single gun that was sold to every citizen and outlaw out there has disappeared off to, while showing absolutely no logical explanation for his suggestions. I don't like it when people make a suggestion and not explaining how to execute it. That's like any other kid telling another kid to do something ''just because''. What the fuck, I'm not wasting my time on this childish mockery.

Ask Piers Morgan


You do not make examples, you make excuses; you do not solve problems, you shift problems; you do not stand behind your statements, you stand behind your stasis.

Urban-Champion
Urban-Champion
  • Member since: Feb. 25, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Gamer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 11:37:08 Reply

At 12/29/12 11:14 AM, Insanctuary wrote:
At 12/29/12 11:05 AM, Urban-Champion wrote: Strangely enough you're the only one that seems to think that.
That's because nearly everyone wants to be right when they are unimaginably wrong. I state my points and I do well to make it clear when I am wrong or the other is wrong. If you don't refute my point, I will call you out on it. If you resort to non-statements, I will tell you to challenge my position before you turn to assumptions. I have my ways to make things clearl, it isn't me that makes things more difficult than they already are. People are just emotionally complicated in this world. Which explains a lot why I am a prick.

all i got from that was FALLACY AFTER FALLACY AFTER FALLACY

Can't we think between the lines instead of "ALL FOR GUNS" and "ALL OPPOSED TO GUNS"
We are thinking between the lines, you dolt.

I forgot you were the only person on this forum to have ever discussed this topic ever. I wasn't speaking just to you. Still feel clever yet?

Coop
Coop
  • Member since: Apr. 28, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 59
Writer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 11:41:22 Reply

At 12/29/12 11:00 AM, Insanctuary wrote:
At 12/29/12 10:38 AM, Coop wrote: I merely suggested reducing the number of guns that are in circulation...
How do you suppose for this to occur? How about we switch this up a level, and say, reduce the amount of children who are abducted. It's impossible because the problems are in a GREY AREA, you sod.

Calling me a clump of turf really hurts my feelings, you know.

The same goes for the black markets and underground trades. Besides, if we are still living in fear when it comes to the child sex ring leaders and the leaders of drug cartels -- we certainly aren't going to do anything about the off-marketing of weaponry.

Since Newtown is the event that started this debate and brough Piers Morgan's big mouth to the fore, commencing this thread, let's look at that. Did the shooter, a kid with Asperger Syndrome, obtain these weapons through the black market? No, he got them from his mother, who had taught him to shoot them, for his own good.

My point is that even had his mother gone through a licensing process, I'm sure that her son would not have. Raising awareness that guns are deadly weapons, coupled with proper training would have been able to avert this, or at least lessen the tragedy. I'm thinking about the innocent children that died here, not the pricks that say "we need more guns because of this!"

I may not agree with the second amendment,
All it does is state a flexible freedom. Guns are a part of that freedom and are imperative for survival. The guns aren't doing the killing. It's the fucking idiots who think they own this world.

Guns are not imperative for survival - I've lived for nearly 30 years and have never once depended upon a gun for my survival. And as for fucking idiots who think they own this world, that's where you find a massive stereotype of America.

I'm not making a social declaration, merely a statistical one - less guns, equals less chances of one ending up in the wrong hands. If you're too much of a hot headed idiot to realise it, then you're merely adhering to international stereotyping.
Idiot. What does taking away guns from the citzens have anything to do with the outlaws? Jesus, what world do you live in?

I don't know, perhaps because there are less guns available in shops, there would be less robberies of gunsmiths and gun shops, where crooks get away with weapons, for using in crime? Perhaps you've not considered that and you'd be so kind as to not insult me when we're having a polite argument. A difference in opinion does not make me an idiot.

The question I have is, does this take place for everyone who purchases a gun legally in the United States?
It should be mandatory for people to not only know how to use a gun, but to know that death and killing isn't something you experience in games. The damned social media is always sensoring the gruesome details that a lot of people don't really understand the genuine experience of murder. They become desensitized and this clashes with their negative emotions in their damned fallouts. Which leads to them losing their mind and losing sight for everything they once stood for.

Censoring gruesome details? Such as what? I'm sure that the media would have censored this sort of thing for a long time before social media came along. It's hardly that these activities are being glamorised, after all.

Context is everything, you've taken mine as a few fields away.
No, you clearly do not understand what you are talking about. You're an idiot.

I understand it better than you're willing to accept and you could not understand a coherent argument if it walked up to you and smacked you square in the face.


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

BBS Signature
Insanctuary
Insanctuary
  • Member since: Dec. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 11:53:05 Reply

At 12/29/12 11:41 AM, Coop wrote: Since Newtown is the event that started this debate and brough Piers Morgan's big mouth to the fore, commencing this thread, let's look at that. Did the shooter, a kid with Asperger Syndrome, obtain these weapons through the black market? No, he got them from his mother, who had taught him to shoot them, for his own good.

... The fucking retard wouldn't have gone gun ablazing with Vulcan pulsing in his tiny shrimpy dick if people were armed, you ignorant cunt. Look at this if people were armed. You would get the same damned effect you see in bullies. They pick on the SMALL, not the SAME or the BIGGER. If people have guns, the fear would overwhelm their animosity. If you cannot understand this simple concept, you are a lost cause -- perhaps more than those families.

I'm thinking about the innocent children that died here, not the pricks that say "we need more guns because of this!"

They're dead. It was a tragic experience. Shut the fuck up about it. It happened, whereas there are children in other countries starving because of our need for inflated values. You are all a bunch of stupid hypocrites who only care when things happen near you. You never pay any mind to any other event when it doesn't have anything to do with you. Just shut the fuck up. We need more gun owners and responsibilities with guns. We've grown precarious over the course of our human lives and dependent on hopes, dreams, conveniences, love and technology. It's time to grow some fucking balls and do what is best for our safety.

Guns are not imperative for survival - I've lived for nearly 30 years and have never once depended upon a gun for my survival. And as for fucking idiots who think they own this world, that's where you find a massive stereotype of America.

That's because it is circumstantial you fuck-wit. Life doens't revolve around you. You live in a society where chain reactions occur. We are talking about the BIG PICTURE. God, you're slow.

I don't know, perhaps because there are less guns available in shops, there would be less robberies of gunsmiths and gun shops, where crooks get away with weapons, for using in crime? Perhaps you've not considered that and you'd be so kind as to not insult me when we're having a polite argument. A difference in opinion does not make me an idiot.

Crooks don't get illegal guns only from breaking into shops? C'mon. You made the suggestion -- now defend it with your life, sir.

Censoring gruesome details? Such as what? I'm sure that the media would have censored this sort of thing for a long time before social media came along. It's hardly that these activities are being glamorised, after all.

The media is always censoring death. Because we are fucking pansies.

I understand it better than you're willing to accept and you could not understand a coherent argument if it walked up to you and smacked you square in the face.

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.

Ask Piers Morgan


You do not make examples, you make excuses; you do not solve problems, you shift problems; you do not stand behind your statements, you stand behind your stasis.

Urban-Champion
Urban-Champion
  • Member since: Feb. 25, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Gamer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 11:55:35 Reply

Coop, advice for life, save yourself the time and effort and don't try to prove anything to this evident troll.

Coop
Coop
  • Member since: Apr. 28, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 59
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.

Urban-Champion
Urban-Champion
  • Member since: Feb. 25, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Gamer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 15:48:43 Reply

At 12/29/12 03:26 PM, LemonCrush wrote: The dangerous weapons are already illegal and banned.

lemoncrush

pretty sure most weapons have the potential to be dangerous. I think you meant to say the "potentially most deadly" weapons have been banned.

Emma
Emma
  • Member since: Oct. 29, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Filmmaker
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
Urban-Champion
Urban-Champion
  • Member since: Feb. 25, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Gamer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-29 16:32:06 Reply

At 12/29/12 04:25 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Most murders are a result of assault rifles.

I'M MEEELLTTTIIINNNGGGG

Ask Piers Morgan

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
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

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
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.

dem0lecule
dem0lecule
  • Member since: Feb. 17, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
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.


What comes around goes around...

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
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?

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
Member
Level 11
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.


What comes around goes around...

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 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 43
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

Urban-Champion
Urban-Champion
  • Member since: Feb. 25, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Gamer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-30 01:12:43 Reply

At 12/29/12 07:55 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
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...

"pretty sure MOST WEAPONS, NOT ALL OF THEM, have the POTENTIAL to be dangerous"

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
  • Online!
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.


my love of material goods is far greater than my love of food

BBS Signature
Coop
Coop
  • Member since: Apr. 28, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 59
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?

Urban-Champion
Urban-Champion
  • Member since: Feb. 25, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Gamer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-30 13:40:03 Reply

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

I hope you don't think i was trying to argue that

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.

Urban-Champion
Urban-Champion
  • Member since: Feb. 25, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Gamer
Response to Ask Piers Morgan 2012-12-30 13:42:04 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.

are you serious

ololololo who fucking cares it's insanctuary

he'll be back anyways to spin heads so hold your panties he ain't goin no where for long

Coop
Coop
  • Member since: Apr. 28, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 59
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