NRA trains members to attack enemies without mercy

No, you are disqualified. In the first place, i simply mentioned armor piercing ammunition, not kevlar vests. In the second place, high-velocity bullets may potentially cause life-threatening blunt-force injuries--but still will not penetrate the kevlar body armor.

You are the one one introduced the topic of high-velocity rounds and kevlar, CJ, i did not. The current body armor used by American armed forces, as describe in this article at Global Security-dot-org, will stop your deer round:

Quote:

The outer tactical vest consists of a Kevlar weave that's will stop 9mm pistol rounds. Webbing on the front and back of the vest permits attaching such equipment as grenades, walkie-talkies and pistols. The Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) is made of a boron carbide ceramic with a spectra shield backing that's an extremely hard material. It stops, shatters and catches any fragments up to a 7.62 mm round with a muzzle velocity of 2,750 feet per second. It's harder than Kevlar.

This is 100% wrong. There is not one British citizen in 1,000 who would prefer our gun laws to be altered to be like the States.

The USA is held here as an example of how NOT to do it. If you want to know the reason for that, look at the gun crime figures.

The USA gun murder figures are 30 times higher, per capita.

cjhsa wrote:

Joe - I believe Zumbo was referring to "scary looking guns".

Rather than guessing at what Zumbo was talking about, here is the blog entry in question:

Assault Rifles For Hunters? As I write this, I'm hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We're testing Remington's brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes. I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms. I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers." Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms." This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods.

(Source) Clearly, in referring to "AR and AK rifles," he was referring to types of semi-automatic weapons (the AR-15 and AK-47 types, to be precise), not to some generic "scary looking guns."

Now ceej, if you think the AR-15 or the AK-47 are "scary looking guns," then that's fine -- you're entitled to your esthetic opinion. But Zumbo had something far more specific in mind when he talked about "assault rifles," and he wasn't talking about how scary they looked. And he quite clearly was talking about semi-automatics, not automatics.

What effect does allowing people to have guns at home have?

Lessee now:

You get Wacos, dozens of innocents needlessly killed

You get wackos shooting at each other because of a traffic incident

You get schoolkids killing schoolkids

You get accidents, fatalities

You forcefeed paranoia in people like McVeigh and cjhsa

You get un-civilisation

On balance, a bad idea.

CJ talks about being afraid of heights, but that he doesn't want ladders banned. However, this very pointedly shows the immature mindset he has. I think that there is only one purpose for handguns, and that is to kill people. They aren't effective for hunting, except for those most expert in shooting hand guns, and in tracking game without being detected. Only in the most extraordinary circumstances would a hand gun be an effective hunting weapon.

What need does any citizen have for a handgun, armor-piercing ammunition or a rapid-fire shotgun? No quibbling, no bullshit diversions--just give a coherent answer.

oralloy wrote:

Setanta wrote:

or why anyone needs ammunition which will penetrate a police officer's kevlar vest.

To protect against criminals who wear Kevlar.

You don't need protection from criminals who wear Kevlar.

Cycloptichorn

It is a shame that the US is the only free country on the planet. It would be nice to see other countries become free.

Oralloy wrote:

It is a shame that the US is the only free country on the planet. It would be nice to see other countries become free.

Only an american who has never traveled would say this.

You have no idea what freedom is.

Hint, it ain't all about guns.

I would perhaps like to respond to some other of the recent responses.

But I think, I can't be bothered to research facts about something what happened three years ago.