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?

Ever heard of using short barrels and short stocks? The military M4 comes to mind when compared to the M16. Same concept. You just use a more compact version. Look at tactical shotguns compared to hunting versions, they usually have a 18.5" barrel compared to one measuring 26". But once again, it's personal choice. They could have done the same thing by switching bullet designs. A good example is Hornady TAP, which uses a frangible bullet that prevents over-penetration. A 9mm using ball ammo can easily penetrate people and go on to cause severe damage. Ask the woman up in NY that had a stray 9mm from an NYPD gun take her eye out due to over-penetration. They changed to hollowpoints soon afterwards. Yes, and they will pay for their stupidity/mistakes with jail time or similar punishments and not being allowed to own firearms anymore. Punish those who violate the law, not the innocent. No, but blaming it on a firearm is a pretty baseless excuse as well. I know people in some of those places can own firearms, the difference between uses pertains to local laws and mentalities, not the firearm itself. I don't know about the countries listed, but in UK they have seen an increase of rapes, muggings, and daytime robberies since major gun restrictions took place. Their crime far outstrips that in the US. Lucky for us, the number of responsible people far outnumbers those idiots. Once again, punish the guilty and not the innocent. 100 million gun owners exist in the US with over 250 million legal firearms. The fact that we have only (approx.) 10,000 homocide deaths a year that are firearm related speaks very well for our responsibility in use. Accidental shootings number around 1,000, which puts it into the 'rare' catagory. We have a constitutional right to firearms, whether your country does or not, and it entitles us to their use for self-defense and protection, as it should be. Sputnik Monroe, add Kerry to list of people who said that.

and my question is why does people need 30 round magazine for such hunting. there are no herds of coyotes attacking human species. i really don't think someone would prefer using a AR15 over a nice Mossberg 500 for home defense. for competition and hunting how about a nice 10 round magazine? Why do police need them? Because you never know what's going to happen. Police, who qualify with their weapons, have emptied a 17rnd magazine at a suspect and hit nothing. Adrenline and stress can have a strange side effects on the human body. Having more cartridges than needed is better than having too little and you get shot while Sure then give them to police, BUT, consider if a trained policeman cannot hit shit, why the hell are you going to give them to a civvy who may, as some people were arguing earlier on, be able to draw his gun and shoot at the criminals.....AT being the key word, as hes probably going to end up wounding more people by causing a shootout, than would have happened otherwise. Most people own firearms because they want to and take a personal interest in learning their function, use, and improving their abilities. Most police these days see it as strictly a job and aren't as skilled as the average shooter. Either way, the extra cartridges are there when you need them, once again refering back to being prepared. Whenever some dangerous event occurs, you never know what will happen. I still don't get how you think the police can have them to protect themselves, but we can't have them for our protection. It defies your own logic. You guys do know this law expired on the midnight of the 13th right? Congress didn't renew it (it's their decision, not the Presidents) and it no longer exists. Amazingly enough, there isn't blood flowing in the streets or people selling assault weapons on street corners. Who would have guessed it would sunset without incident?

Read the damn law, then you can come back here and make intelligent conversations/debate related to it instead of stupid assumptions and extreme sarcasm. Got here: http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d103query.html Enter hr3355 in the top box, go to Text of Legislation, Click HR335.ENR, scroll to Title XI and read all of that. That is the assault weapons ban.

not all of them hate AWB. but most would prefer not getting chances of themselves getting caught at the other end of barrel. last night, LA Sherriffs Commisioner Lee Baca said 'President Bush needs to support renewal. You are either with us or against us.' You'll find very quickly that the commissioners/sheriffs/etc of large democratic-based cities are the ones that support it. Talk to avergae joe-cop who has to actually patrol the streets, most of them support expiration. In small towns, many officers have to buy their own supplementary partol weapons themselves, this makes it very hard for them to obtain certain weapons they need. For future reference, my grandfather is an ex-sheriff and my uncle is a retired state trooper and ex-sheriff. class 3 is legal if you have license and pay 2 $250 tax stamps. No, it's a one time, $200 tax stamp fee. But seeing that a M16 RDIAS cost $10k, that's the least of your fees. all those illegal revolvers were once legal. Eh? Revolvers? Where'd that come from? The #1 choice of criminals is cheap handguns, specifically Lorcins, Brycos and Jennings. Banning them won't do any good though, they'd just find an alternative like shotguns and 'sporting' rifles. not to mention that it failed since firearms manufactures decided to cicumvent the law. I assume you mean by using 'loopholes'? Fact: There is no such thing as loopholes. Something either complies with the law or not. They complied with the law, the same way car manufacturers comply with emissions laws: You adapt the best you can and continue to sell your products. If you want to blame anyone, blame the legislators... oh wait, you can't because they lost their seats in congress after they passed the law. Oops. and my question is why does people need 30 round magazine for such hunting. there are no herds of coyotes attacking human species. i really don't think someone would prefer using a AR15 over a nice Mossberg 500 for home defense. for competition and hunting how about a nice 10 round magazine? Why do police need them? Because you never know what's going to happen. Police, who qualify with their weapons, have emptied a 17rnd magazine at a suspect and hit nothing. Adrenline and stress can have a strange side effects on the human body. Having more cartridges than needed is better than having too little and you get shot while trying to reload. I would choose an AR-15 over a shotgun in a heartbeat. It allows me to shoot a specific area/target without worry of overspray from the shot/buckshot spread and possibly hitting someone else in a nearby room. All competitions have different rules. Service rifle requires large capacity magazines because they're patterned after service rifles from the military. Get it? Rapid fire competitions also make use of them. and where does illegla weapons come from? atleast once a legal owner. Not always. In the certain countries, arsenals aren't always as protected as they should be. Some can also be manufactured with very little tools, and have been by criminals. In Austrailia, a guy in his living room was making full-auto suppressed Owen submachineguns with very few tools. (I can find an article for this if you want it.) AKs are nothing more than bent sheetmetal and blocks of steel with very little machining. All you need to assemble one from parts is a hydraulic press (car shops use them) and a sheet metal bender (car shops, also siding/roofing). FALs are also fairly simple to make from parts.

As if! I would need some serious proof to believe that one. I have personally seen tapes with fully automatic shotouts where people have died as a result of, and they were not from the 70's... hmmm funny It should have said: Last murder with a legally owned automatic weapon. Illegal full-auto weapons have been used in crime. The one your thinking of is probably the North Hollywood Shootout. Their full-auto AKs were illegal and smuggled in from Mexico. As a side note, full-auto guns are still legal. They're just extremely expensive. Laws regulating them: NFA 1934, FOPA Amendment 1986. The first registered them, the latter banned future productions. All full-auto rifles registered prior to '86 were grandfathered and are still legal to own. Suppressors are also legal in the US. Okay, so then, unless you are arguing FOR the ban, not a good thing for your argument. How an I arguing for the ban? The AWB does not cover full-auto weapons. Read the legislation.

Read the law. It affected semi-auto weapons only. If you have a problem with the way they catagorized them as 'assault weapons', that's their fault. They did that to make them look evil and useless, and it has caused tons of confusion ever since such as your post.

Crap load of paperwork? Go to a class 3 dealer, buy a suppressor ($200-600). You then fill out Form 4s (I believe) in duplicate, duplicate fingerprint cards, passport photos, and have a CLEO sign off on it. Then send the paperwork with a $200 check to the ATF. Wait 30-90 days for approval and you can then pickup the suppressor and use it. Price range: $400-800 tops.

As if! I would need some serious proof to believe that one. I have personally seen tapes with fully automatic shotouts where people have died as a result of, and they were not from the 70's... hmmm funny It should have said: Last murder with a legally owned automatic weapon. Illegal full-auto weapons have been used in crime. The one your thinking of is probably the North Hollywood Shootout. Their full-auto AKs were illegal and smuggled in from Mexico. As a side note, full-auto guns are still legal. They're just extremely expensive. Laws regulating them: NFA 1934, FOPA Amendment 1986. The first registered them, the latter banned future productions. All full-auto rifles registered prior to '86 were grandfathered and are still legal to own. Suppressors are also legal in the US.

Just through modifying a firearm to meet a certain use, say competition or hunting, you can accidently get it classified as an 'assault weapon'. The features, especially barrel threads, are in no way specific to military weapons. How does a bayonet lug increase a firearms lethality, or a pistol grip? Pistol grips were originally designed for ergonomics, otherwise hanguns would be still be utilizing the long curvatures used in the early blackpowder designs. It's pretty sad to have to spend 10 years in prison because "I added a pistol grip to my duck gun." Many people do think drugs should be legalized. I'm pretty much neutral on the issue. If you did legalize it, a lot of crime would be prevented and you could also eliminate some incidental deaths due to competition between dealers or improper use. But consider this: firearms are tools to be used, for good or bad. They don't automatically kill people or cause death. They have many practical uses, already listed. Drugs automatically hurt the user through their use. There is no way to moderatley smoke cannibus or take heroine (like alcohol) to where it won't affect your motor abilities. The whole point in using illegal drugs is to get the 'high' from overuse. Hallucinogens bring in a whole new game, making the person automatically dangerous to everyone around them unless restrained at the time of use. They could do anything while in such a state. You assume too much. First, handguns are borderline for effectiveness on the human body. Police have been struggling with this for ages, looking for new calibers or bullet designs to reliably stop a suspect. Their only plus is portability, which is why police use them as their main weapon. When police go after a suspect with prior knowledge, they take either a shotgun or rifle (usually an assault weapon) because they know their life is on the line. Civilians should have the same exact choices in defending themselves. Secondly, self defense, here in the US anyway, is clearly defined as use deadly force when the same is facing you. Going around shooting unarmed people, even burglars, unless they are a lethal threat, is illegal. Most people don't go looking for trouble either. I posted this on another forum: "If an intruder was in my house I would personally: Grab a gun, grab a phone and dial 911, check on family members, and wait it out. In that order. If I happened upon an intruder somewhere during all of this, I would point the gun at them and tell them to leave. If they left then fine, if they made an attempt or suspected attempt to hurt me or someone else, I would fire. I think these are very reasonable conditions. I'm also not risking my life going out of the way to get into trouble." Is that not reasonable? I also have no sympathy for someone's life, if it comes to the point that they would harm me or someone else over property or money, be that person a drug user or a kid from the neighborhood. Pulling out a gun is far from stupid. Acting like Rambo though definately is. See my above listed ROE. Civilians, like police, can also visit training centers and go through actual training for such scenarios. Whether someone endagers their life acting like Rambo or not, you have no right to tell someone they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves with the best means available. If you choose not to use a gun, then that is your choice, as it should be when it comes to your life. If they act rash and do something stupid, the law will punish them for it. Generally such a crime is a felony and thus makes it illegal for them to own a firearm the rest of their life. Seems fair to me. Once again, your opinion. Many people hate dogs, they're also a much bigger liability than any firearm if trained for protection. Just because I own firearms doesn't mean I foam at the mouth and try to shoot everything that moves. Seriously, quit making riduculous assumptions and use common sense. Paranoid? No. We just believe in being prepared. Does you government not keep a military during times of peace? Do police not take handguns with them to vehicles on routine traffic stops? Same concept.

Show me what was effective about the AWB, as put into law... Fact is, none of it was. There were three parts to this ban: Specific Firearms, Accessories, Magazines. Let's go through each one piece by piece and show the obsurdity. Ban on specific firearms. Never worked. Firearms listed for ban were either banned from import in '89, put back into production under different names, or the company doesn't exist anymore. Perfect examples are the firearms made by Vulcan Arms, Vector Arms, Ohio Rapid Fire, Bushmaster, Colt, and many others. Google them for their websites. AK varients, UZIs, Galils, FALs, AR-15s and many other firearms were still in production during the AWB. Feature/Accessory ban. Stupidest concept ever made, here's a picture of a preban/postban AR-15 to show the difference: The only difference is the bayonet lug and flash suppressor. Pretty stupid eh? Not only this, these features cross over to non-military rifles. Take a Remington 11-87 shotgun for instance. Slap on a pistol grip stock (ergonomics) and a 3-shell magazine tube extension: Assault Weapon. Don't duck hunters use those? Take a Ruger 10/22, put a thumbhole target stock on it and thread the barrel for a compensator: Assault Weapon. Hmm, that's a very popular squirrel rifle and competition gun. Lastly, the magazine ban. This many affected newly manufactured firearms that were not in production before the '94 ban. All other firearms had their high capacity magazines grandfathered and are free to use them in post-ban legal rifles. AR-15, AK-47, FAL, G3, and UZI mags (20, 30 and 32rnd capacities) could all be had for less than $10 each during the ban because the market was saturated. It had no effect on their use. Look up places like CDNN Investments, Vector Arms, and K-Var. Are you starting to see why this ban needed to expire? It did not ban anything, except features, and if someone customized a semi-auto firearm to their liking, even if it wasn't military related, they could violate the law very easily without knowing it and get sent to prison for 10 years. Just for something as simple as threading their barrel for a compensator. Actual firearm performance/lethality was not effected by the features either. Uses for banned weapons: Self defense, competition, hunting. Civilians, like police (who are civilians), use AWs for protection. They're ergonomic, easy to operate under stress, and offer better protection than a handgun. To add insult to injury, police run into the same problems that civilians do, to give it to one side and not the other is ignorant. AR-15s, and many other military rifles are used in competitions such as Service Rifle and 3-gun where speed and accuracy is needed. They are used in many competitions, just research it and you'll find more than enough evidence. AR-15s are wonderful coyote calling rifles, they're also used by some people on prarie dog fields. AKs match the old .30-30 in ballistics and several people are using them for hunting due to the cheaper price. They're also not as inaccurate as most people say. M14s, G3s, and FALs have been used for hunting deer for ages and fire the .308 Win cartridge, a very popular hunting round. M14 used on turkey: Lastly, the AWB covered semi-auto firearms only! No machineguns or other 'restricted' weapons were covered. Also, during the time it was encated, these crimes took place: Columbine, North Hollywood Shootout, D.C. Sniper. The AWB stopped none of them and the Hollywood crime involved full-auto AKs smuggled in from Mexico. AWB didn't stop that either. AWs before the ban were used in less than 3% of all crimes, handguns are the weapons of choice for criminals.