RooK

Police mostly use Level IIA body armor, due to price and mobility restraints. This stops most handguns used, as it should since that is what they will mostly be facing. The Only armor that stops rifle ammo is Level IIIA with trauma plates. Mobility is basicly destroyed and only certain special law enforcement teams (SWAT) use them. Lower price? AWs are going down in price. A Bushmaster XM15 (AR-15) cost $800 right now, it won't be coming down anytime soon because that's how much they cost to manufacture. I doubt much truth will come to bear. I'll look over though when I have the time, I assure you.

These are not war rifles or they would be full-auto or select fire. You fail to make that distinction. What is unethical about hunting with them? Does a .308 chambered bolt rifle kill a deer and a .308 chambered autoloader somehow defy the laws of nature and rip the animal to shreds? You act as if they have some form of voodoo that makes them more deadly when all the firearm does is work the action for you.

Just because you didn't know their used doesn't mean it doesn't happen. My grandfather used a Remington 7400 in .30-06 for deer for years. Benelli just released a new R1 for hunting. AKs have been used for hunting boars and deer, and SKSs have started replacing lever action .30-30s for woods hunting due to price. M1 Garands have been filling this roll since WWII. So nice of you to call people names for exercising preference though, very big of you. I posted a pic a few pages back of a turkey taken with a M1A (M14). Unless by automated you mean full-automatic? There are different subcatagories within the one you choose to refer to. Phantoms? What phantoms do you refer to? Facts based on what? Watching too many movies are we? I've already stated the frequency of AWs used in ALL crimes as less than 3%, backed up by a scholarly journal I could provide. That puts it well below the radar of concern when compared to other firearms and their uses. I think it would be easier to point out a scenario where it wouldn't be, since there are much fewer of those. Places where they wouldn't be used: extremely cramped spaces, apartment complexes with rooms located all around, above and below, and you have no knowledge of the occupants whereabouts. Doesn't self-defense require the firearm be in the home? It certainly doesn't do any good being 15 miles away in safe at a shooting range. If a firearm is stolen, why should the owner be held liable? A person made a concious decision to steal and use it, shouldn't the they be blamed? A firearm has the ability to preserve one's life through proper use, is that not of worthy profit to the owner? Following your last comment, yes, pots don't boil noodles. They cook food, but it requires a person to retrieve the pot, place it on the stove, and place food in it before it can work. Then isn't the person that cooks the food? Otherwise we wouldn't have chefs. (Is it just me, or has this comment evolved into some wierd analogy? I think were bordering on philosophy.)

It's their right as free human beings, is it not? You don't need a driver license for a car or to take any test if you plan to drive it on your own property. If they fail to read the instruction manual or follow common sense and hurt someone, then they will prosecuted. It's already been shown that AW use in crime is rare. The scenario you display is purely assumption and fathoms of the mind. Yes they might be stolen, but isn't it your property, and if stolen the criminal should be held liable? The fact that it is a rifle and can be used for hunting, self-defense, plinking, or target shooting? It's no different than say a bolt-action rifle when it comes to uses, though it does excel in certain areas. Uh... We don't have any shooting ranges around here. I shoot in my backyard and sometimes hunt here. Going to a shooting range does me no good and offers no benefits. Because sometimes they have to be used on quick notice. I've had to kill possums while they were attacking my waterfowl late at night on two occasions. Lot of good a remotely located firearm would have done me then. It also prevents their use in self-defense, which is granted to us in the US, despite whether you find it appropriate or not. Do you keep your pots and pans outside the kitchen, where you must travel miles before you can retrieve one and cook, and then you take it back after use? Or do you keep them where most useful and convenient: in the kitchen? Same thing with firearms, you keep them where they will be used, this includes in the house (self-defense) and around it. Not everyone lives in an urban area. Even if they did, it's their property and they have every right to make their own decisions over what they want to do with their firearms.

Reading page 3 already starts to discredit it. It says: That is an outright lie. Handguns are the #1 choice and have been for years. Assault Weapons, even before the AWB, were used in less than 3% of crimes, well below handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles. Let's assume this is true. I know for a fact that only 300 or less LE officers are killed each year. That's 60 dead due to this catagory of weapons. But wouldn't the deaths from these weapons be higher than handguns because they can penetrate bulletproof vests? I bet your standard hunting rifle and shotgun also surpass handguns (and even AWs) in officer deaths. You only need a bullet traveling over 2000fps to punch through the Kevlar. Any rifle can do that. We need complete statistics to make anything of the numbers. I think Pathy already proved that it has been declining for well over a decade earlier in this thread. (BTW, that wasn't a result of the AWB, since those weapons were used in so little crime to begin with. It was due to the Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1994. The AWB was part of it, but the rest of the law did not expire and is still on our books. For the most part, it is a good piece of legislation.) How an you even trust one word the rest of this document states? They've already misled you three times and you haven't even gone beyond 3 pages into the document. If you want, when I have more time, I'll go through and further discredit it for you.

No, AD describes any given situation where the user "malfunctions". There's nothing A when the firearm malfunctions and D:s. Apparently ND is nothing more than the PC version of AD. There is nothing accidental (AD) about placing your finger on the trigger and shooting something you didn't mean to, or failing to unload a firearm and you point it at someone and shoot them. Those are negligent discharges (ND), i.e. you're to blame for stupidity and lack of following proper procedures on your part. ADs happen when a sear breaks, a saftey fails to function, or a gun doubles or triples by itself. Those are accidents and there is no way you could ever prepare for them and conditions you had no control over. 90%+ of so called "accidents" are NDs, created by the user not following gun saftey or doing activites they shouldn't.

No, AD and ND both exist. AD is when the firearm malfunctions, ND is when the person malfunctions. How can a puppy set off a revolver? Unless it was already cocked, their trigger pulls are in the 10lb range, which is from light for those that have experienced it. Either way, definately an ND due to stupidity.

No it doesn't, your silverware being stolen has no relevance to your own personal health. Again, according to my personal values. I would rather have the burglar eating with my silverware, than shooting him to death. Then you're on par with most Americans. Now, if he took a knife and started to run at you, then you have every right in the world to respond with deadly force.

Does shooting someone who's stealing silverware sound like self-defense? Use some common sense.

You're applying Swedish law to the US. It doesn't apply here. The SCOTUS is the Supreme Court of the US, think the highest form of judiciary power. The police here are a public service to assist in handling/preventing crime, they aren't your body guards. See above. They clean up the mess after a crime has happened, very rarily do they stop it "in progress." During this time which they are not present, you are responsible for your own life. Here is depends on what 'brandish' is. Open carry of a handgun is legal in my state. I can walk around on any public property with a handgun on my hip and it is perfectly legal. If someone is acting in a dangerous matter, then punish them by the law, not those abiding by it. That last is an acceptable means for firearm use in my country, your opinion doesn't matter. Having a firearm in your possession doesn't always mean it's a good idea to use it. Knowing such is part of being a responsible gun owner. Besides, it's your life, you should be able to make that choice for yourself. Let others make up their own mind and control their own life. This isn't Sweden. We have the right, by being free-born humans in the US, to defend our life with deadly force if neccessary. I don't stand for vigilantism, I stand for protecting yourself and those around you. In the US, we still believe in personal rights and the fact that a criminal is a criminal, despite whether he was killed during the act of a crime. I don't need them to "feel safe," I just want them so that I know I am prepared for any situation I might face. If a civilian who owns a firearm for self-defense is paranoid, why does a police officer carry one when conducting routine traffic stops? Is he paranoid or just being prepared? Same concept.

Treating the source of the problem instead of the side effect is too easy of a solution. Apparently you must first strip a person's right away and then punish them. When that fails you do it to something else.

I take it you missed the part about the SCOTUS ruling that police do not do that or have that responsibility? Then why don't you call the police on them, that's what they're for according you. You're also applying some stereotype to all firearm owners, which is very far from the truth. It depends on the situation. Unless you resisted, there is no truely knowing whether you would have been killed or not. It's an assumption. You can also help others when armed, which is another advantage you're overlooking. Most times when a firearm is used to stop a crime, no shots are fired. The suspect usually stops and flees. Isn't that what was needed?

Owning a firearm does stop crime. I had a cousin who used one to save her life. If you can ever take the time to pick up an NRA magazine, they have a section specifically called Armed Citizen in which they have small peices where civilians defended themselves with firearms Besides, if possession of a firearm didn't stop crime, why do police have them and use them? They already have enough gear they have to carry around, if the handgun was useless they could not issue them. It would also save a lot money.

That doesn't apply here. Kentucky State Constitution http://fact.trib.com/1st.kentconst.html

This has mostly evolved from an AWB issue into gun ownership as a whole. My original post was just to show that the banned firearms/features were no more dangerous (in crime or lethality) than firearms not banned. No point in arguing about gun ownership itself because you won't sway people based on their established mindsets, if strong enough. Especially ones who have never owned a firearm, most have never fired one. Anyway, for those arguing about self-defense and the police, it might be a different situation in your country, but here in the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that police are not responsible for a citizen's personal saftey. If you call 911 and ask for help, they can legally tell you to f*** off. Many people that do call get an answer that 'all units are busy,' which is just a politically correct version of the former. If you die because they didn't have enough units on patrol, your family can do nothing (in legal terms) because they cannot be held responsible. Police don't stop crime, they cleanup the mess afterwards, which includes carrying you off to the morgue if they couldn't make it on time. Starting to have even a little more insight into why firearms are needed for self-defense?