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)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?