Fort Hood Shooter Used 'Cop Killer' Armor-Piercing Handgun
WASHINGTON --- Four and a half years ago, three police organizations in the United States issued advisories to warn officers that a new handgun introduced into the U.S. market by a Belgium manufacturer of military firearms represented a unique threat to the safety of police officers.It was a handgun that was designed to fire bullets through body armor. A U.S. Senator and a U.S. Congressman urged a legal ban on civilian possession of the firearm, which began being referred to as the “cop killer gun.”
The gun, manufactured by FN Herstal of Belgium, is lightweight and easily concealable, and was designed as a military sidearm to complement military rifles made by the same company. One law enforcement expert referred to the Five-Seven as “an assault rifle that fits in your pocket.” While no police officer has reportedly been killed by a suspect armed with a Five-Seven, it may now have taken the lives of U.S. soldiers.
Today, several news sources are reporting that it was the Five-Seven that Nidal M. Hasan used in his shooting attack at Fort Hood in Texas Thursday. In January 2005, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO) and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), released their alert to the police community at a press conference, joined by U.S. Senator Charles Schumer and Congressman Elliott Engel of New York.
When first launched for civilian sales, company officials wrote on the company website that “enemy personnel, even wearing body armor can be effectively engaged up to 200 meters. Kevlar® helmets and vests as well as the CRISAT protection will be penetrated.” That language has since been removed by FN Herstal.
In early 2005, Brady Campaign staff purchased the weapon at a Virginia gun dealer and test-fired it.The bullets successfully penetrated a police Kevlar vest. As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies.
Fort Hood Shooter Used 'Cop Killer' Armor-Piercing Handgun
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More Brady Bunch lies.
Guns don't penetrate armor, bullets penetrate armor. The bullets have to be specifically designed for that purpose and are not available to civilians. Not to mention the fact that no one was wearing armor anyhow. The Wiki article below notes the Brady Bunch claims of penetrating Class II armor were totally bogus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_seven
It could have been worse. Hasan might have brought a rifle or shotgun. The survival rate would have been far lower and he would have been out of range of the handgun used to take him down.
There doesn't seem to be any way to stop these things from happening, but since they do happen, it is fortunate bad guys are prone to picking low power, inaccurate, short range weapons over sporting arms designed to produce long range, one shot kills on animals substantially bigger and tougher than people.
At to punching through body armor at 200 yards with a handgun, let's not be ridiculous. It'd take pure luck to hit a house at that range and the bullet would lose over half its energy before getting there.
- Don Earl
November 6, 2009 5:03PM
Reply to this Recommend
(11)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Just Friendly Fire?
When one of your own Kills you it's Friendly Fire, CORRECT?
- SteveKislock3
November 7, 2009 12:04AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Treason defined
No, when a sworn officer of a nation's military commits an act of war against that nation, by killing military troops from ambush, it is treason, plain and simple. Read the US Constitution on this, as I believe this is the only crime actually stated in that document.
- Thorbjorn
November 11, 2009 7:30PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Facts all mixed up
Just because someone markets something in a deceiving way does not mean it is true. The gun itself isn't "armor piercing." There is no such thing as an "armor piercing gun." You are thinking of "armor piercing ammunition." Yes, the company sells armor piercing bullets , and even marketed the gun as being armor piercing (they no longer do, as you've stated, because they found out it was a bad marketing scheme), but the only aspect of a purchase from FN Herstal that is armor piercing would be ammo, which in most places is very likely illegal to own.
It's this same sort of confusion that closed the market for kevlar coated ammunition. That ammo wasn't armor piercing, even though anti-gun activists said it was. The only benefit one got from this ammo was that it was kinder to the gun's barrel. That's it.
- Starlon
November 6, 2009 5:08PM
Reply to this Recommend
(7)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Brady Hysteria and Insensitivity
"Cop-killer ammunition?"
Brady's ... there just is no such thing outside of your warped imagination.
I am surprised you didn't claim those little pistols could also shoot down commercial aircraft. You hysteria is slacking a bit these days.
But as usual, you are right there after a tragedy , trying to capitalize on it. You people are worse than Michael Jackson's producers.
You should be ashamed, if you had any shame.
- Carl in Chicago
November 6, 2009 6:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(11)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
CONSIDER THE ASSASSIN
Bullets do not kill. Consider the shooter of the weapon. Americans have to realize the type of individual and his beliefs are at the root caused the massacre at Ft. Hood.
Stop ignoring the reality that the killer is a radical Muslim.
- Fiddler
November 6, 2009 6:18PM
Reply to this Recommend
(7)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I find your remarks disgusting
The Constitution is a whole document, not a set of separable clause that may be discounted at the whim of the moment. It's worth noting, however, assuming some priority was given to the ordering, that the right to be free in one's beliefs comes before the right to bear arms.
Personally, I find all religions equally foolish. At the same time, I respect the right of all to believe in whatever absurd nonsense they please. From a nonpartisan standpoint, I see Christianity as the most violent, hateful and blood thirsty of the lot. Judasim and Islam probably run a close second or third as all three are rooted in the old testament.
By all accounts, this was a man who was harrassed and abused for years because of his beliefs, until one day he finally snapped.
Over the past 50 years, I've watched one group after another be singled out for abuse and am old enough to remember other groups being phased out in my earliest years. In the 40s and 50s, if you wanted to be rude to someone to make yourself feel better, anyone with a Japanese or German name was fair game. Blacks were being phased out as fair game for kicking in the 60s, and were replaced by Asians and Russians. Somewhere along the line, Arabs, who were some of our best buddies all the way to the late 70s, became the popular subject of abuse with the end of the Cold War and Vietnam. And, of course, if some bigot can't find an Arab to hate, they can still mostly get away with kicking a Mexican or two. 30 - 40 years ago, most folks wouldn't have considered treating a Mexican less than well.
So get a clue. If you abuse someone long enough, and often enough, they will eventually get mad enough to kill you. If the US fights another big war , in all likelihood, it will be fought on American soil as the rest of the world unites to put down the bully nation. I'm getting to an age where I tend to walk where I used to run. Being left in peace sounds pretty good to me these days. I'm getting real tired of the kind of loud mouthed punks who shoot off their yaps to start wars someone else always ends up having to fight, and which everyone has to pay for.
The bottom line is over 40 people are dead or injured because people like you don't know how to keep their censored traps shut.
- Don Earl
November 6, 2009 10:26PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
finally snapped?
Don, you need to read some more. He didn't snap; he switched sides. He'd been talking to radicals for quite some time and getting steadily more extreme in his speech .
He didn't "snap" any more than those who flew the planes on 9/11.
- ChrisB
November 11, 2009 11:48AM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Interesting response
BTW, who did fly those planes on 9/11?
9 of the 19 accused of doing so are alive, well, and more than a little miffed at being accused of being suicide bombers.
In the mean time, just because someone goes to a Catholic priest for spiratual advice , doesn't mean all Catholics are baby rapers.
It is, however, interesting to watch how the stories change in our state controlled media as the days pass. In our dumbed down America, most folks don't appear to be bright enough to ask the obvious questions. For example, what Army rocket scientist came up with the bright idea of putting a Muslim in charge of treating soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan for PTSD? Even a chimp with a frontal lobotamy could figure out that one wasn't going to work.
- Don Earl
November 11, 2009 11:48PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Abused by Whom
This man has a half million dollar education - paid for and he was paid monthly while receiving it. He was born in America and educated in America and still set out to kill Americans .
It is his family 'claiming' that he was abused and harassed - In the Army as an Officer and a Doctor - I don't believe that it happened at all - Unless being reported for telling peers and patients that they should convert to Islam is considered abuse and harassment. I can not wait until the trial to see all these supposed lawsuits and complaints by him about abuse and harassment.
And oh btw - Christianity is rooted in the New Testament - not the Old Testament - However anyone who considers all religions foolish - obviously does not care enough to get the facts straight.
- wardmama4
November 12, 2009 4:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Idiotic response
Let's start with the most foolish of your remarks:
RE: "However anyone who considers all religions foolish - obviously does not care enough to get the facts straight."
So, what are the facts? Some wingnut, or group of wingnuts, write a work of fiction, then tell any half wit that will listen it is the word of god , to which only the writers are privy. The tales told and claims made are so absolutely ludicrious that no sane person would find them other than laughable.
The really laughable part is the mythical, all powerful beings that tend to be the heros of these works of fiction are totally, completely and utterly helpless to do anything. In fact these all powerful beings are so helpless they are unable to communicate directly to anyone, and rely totally on people demanding money to "spread the word".
Religion is a form of mental illness many people suffer from to some degree or another. The more religious, the deeper the psychosis. The most seriously afflicted abandon reality altogether, escaping into their imaginary world where nothing is real.
And, of course, like all forms of mental illness, those suffering from it are certain they are not crazy. In their fanstasy world, they are god's chosen people. In the real world, they are typically under achievers and complete losers, who take pride in their ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance and stupidity being the only areas in which they truly excell.
Those are the facts, and are readily available to any objective person, of normal inteligence, who is not suffering from a serious mental illness.
- Don Earl
November 12, 2009 5:39PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
According to Don
80% of Americans (those who say they believe in God) are wingnuts, insane, mentally ill, psychotic, out of touch with reality, underachievers, complete losers and take pride in their ignorance and stupidity.
I stand by my first comment - You do not care to get the facts straight.
And this is a discussion on the gun used - not his religious beliefs - I am sure you can find a story there to discuss your opinions on religion . Good luck.
- wardmama4
November 13, 2009 6:47AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
80%?
I would have guessed the wingnut ratio in this country is higher than that.
For example, Congress, which is made up roughly of half Democrats and half Republicans, has about a 20% approval rating. In spite of this, every election day something on the order of 95% of voters cast their ballots in favor of Democrats or Republicans.
Anyone that crazy is capable of believing just about anything, including believing they may conjure favor from invisible, imaginary, magical beings through chanting ritual mantras. The really hilarious part is most of them would insist they don't believe in magic, while attempting to practice magic through various ridiculous rituals, attendence at covens, masses and sabbaths, and other similar nonsense, the purpose of which is to invoke various gods to do their bidding.
Is the majority always right? Perhaps you can interview a lemming at the next seven year migration. Hint: A very small minority of them don't go swimming.
- Don Earl
November 13, 2009 7:58AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I have been convicted
I attempted to discuss this, unfortunately on your level and I have been chastised. You hate me and you do not even know me - I do not know why. But none of that is my problem since you won't discuss any of this based on fact and reality.
This morning I was convicted by a man who was discussing his personal situation.
So I will pray for you Don Earl, so that you won't go to hell for your hatred of something you know nothing about and only seem to want to spread hatred about in a discussion that has nothing to do with religion .
- wardmama4
November 15, 2009 6:49AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
response
In one century, the advocates of natural law , social darwinism, and athiesm have eclipsed the body count of two thousand years of religious conflict. Hitler, Mau, Pol Pot, and Stalin all advanced the idea of rational government devoid of the constaints of religion . Of course, gun control is a fundemental component of genocide by the State, and features prominently in mass murder incidents as well. A more general distribution of power might not reduce the death rate (although I think it would), but could allow each individual to determine his/her destiny. The idea that we should allow enlightened social planners goes against the grain.
- somebody else
November 13, 2009 12:58PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You have a funny way of looking at it.
Isn't the first thing out of any religious zelots mouth, that war is justified to wipe out any "godless" people? Vietnam and the Cold War: wipe out the godless communists. WWII and the atom bomb: wipe out godless Nazis and their confederates. Afghanistan and Iraq 1 & 2: wipe out godless Muslims .
A comprehensive list would be too long to post, but the bottom line is anytime a government wants a messy war, all it has to do is tell its people their god is threatened and they line up like baby ducks following their mama. In the words attributed to the mythical Christ, "I cometh not to bring peace. I cometh with a sword.".
Throughout history, religion has always provided a convenient handle whenever government seeks to wrest a people's liberty from them. There's no need to enslave a people when they are willing to enslave themselves simply by telling them it's "god's will".
"In god we trust", "One nation under god.", religious artifacts in public places and government offices, religious cults lobbying healthcare bills, etc.. The priest kings of Egypt never had it so good.
The best definition of "evil" I've ever seen is causing harm to someone who has done nothing to cause you harm first. On that basis, the purpose of religion is to redefine evil so that it may be embraced by its followers.
- Don Earl
November 13, 2009 2:48PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
funny way to look at it
A purge, or genicide, is a war where only one side shows up. When in Burma, Laos, Cambodia, China, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union,etc., the rational atheist powers choose to eliminate a group based on race , religion , genetic inferiority, or natural order people seem to line up every time to do the dirty work. A war occurs when both sides show up. Througout the last century religion has born the brunt of these internal purges. Atheists have always maintained a list of those whose lives were unworthy of life, and have acted on those beliefs whenever they gain uncontested power. A purge does not neccessarily follow political ascendency, but is much more likely when the intended victims are disarmed.
I can think of two instances where uncontested power was not abused--when England (inspired by religious leaders) used their matchless naval power to attack global slavery, and America had sole control of nuclear power and did not expoit it--I am aware that the second case can be challanged, but what if Stalin, Hitler, Mau, or Kim Jong Il had that power? I submit that if you rank belief systems according to the harm done to humanity, humanism tops the list.
If government wants a "clean" war, it will disarm those who are not subordinate to the ideology of the state and send them to the gulags. A messy war occurs when the victims shoot back. I have never believed that war is the worst case scenario. Genocide is.
We have wandered off topic. I believe that mass killings of any type can be averted through weapons proliferation. So long as the general public is armed, competing social, political, and religeous views have a better chance of civil expression. The Fort Hood murders show in microcosm the dangers of providing a person or entity with uncontested power.
- somebody else
November 13, 2009 3:56PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hasan is from Arlington, Virginia
I live there and last I heard we were considered American. He may be a radical Islamist, but he's as American as apple pie.
- tvljr
November 11, 2009 12:13PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You can buy AP rounds
You can actually still buy the armor piercing rounds for the FN 5.7
it's called SS192 it is a Hollow Point steel core bullet. sold in 2000 rd cans or 50 per small box. It was voluntarily taken off the market from FN but the ammo is still available!!! look on Gunbroker.com
- gunsrmylife
November 6, 2009 8:57PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
SS192 armor piercing?
It's not classified by the ATF as armor piercing, and FN's testing showed it not to be. Where are you getting the information that it is? Also, has any information been released about the actual ammunition used by this loony?
- LagerHead
November 6, 2009 10:05PM
Reply to this Recommend
(4)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
But Those Bullets
Are illegal in many States.
Hell, it is even illegal to possess JHP in States like New Jersey, regardless of whether they are loaded in a weapon or not. Which means in the wonderful State of New Jersey they'd rather people used ammunition that stands a higher chance of going through the target and hitting innocent bystanders than one designed for Self Defense.
Another example of how the law -abiding are legislated out of their Right to Life. But we know the Brady Campaign doesn't want us to have any bullets at all. They want Gun Free Zones like the one which lead to the creation of Easy Targets for a madman in Fort Hood.
- m46607
November 6, 2009 10:09PM
Reply to this Recommend
(8)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good points, and some semantics
Your point about NJ's ammo laws is excellent. Not only does their "permitted" ammo stand a better chance of going through a target, i.e., in a self-defense situation, a human, it is virtually guaranteed to go through most anything else in its path, increasing the likelihood of collateral injury or death.
Another semantical point, but let's not give the antis any more "ammo" to use. And the media invariably get it wrong too. A firearm - be it a long gun or handgun - isn't a weapon unless intended as such, by military or law enforcement, or until used as such, by civilians. For the same reason we don't call baseball bats or fireplace pokers or knives weapons until they are used to intentionally smash someone's head in or slice or stab someone, firearms are not weapons until used as such, to intentionally commit bodily harm to someone.
I own many firearms, steak knives, baseball bats, and a host of other potentially lethal instruments, none of which is a weapon.
- canislupus
November 12, 2009 3:50PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Just posted to ABC's web site
ABC appears to have drawn most of the firearms knowledge displayed in their story from this press release.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cop-killer-gun-thought-ft-hood-shooting/story?id=9019521
This report reads like a press release from the Brady Center, using their buzzword, and their exaggerated characterizations of the gun's power. The writers' ignorance of firearms technology is obvious in calling the ammunition "5.7 caliber" (it's 5.7mm) and calling the magazines "clips."
It's not hard to see where the claims of bias come from when your reporters run unedited press releases without knowing or understanding what's in them. We at The Firearms Coalition would be happy to provide technical assistance. There are numerous other organizations and groups in the firearms community, including the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the National Rifle Association, and Gun Owners of America who would be equally willing to help you improve the quality of your reporting.
Chris Knox
Communications Director
The Firearms Coalition
- Chris Knox
November 6, 2009 11:05PM
Reply to this Recommend
(6)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Clips vs. Magazines
From the glossary on the NRA site at:
http://www.nrainsights.org/history_firearms_glossary.php
"CLIP
A device for holding a group of cartridges. Semantic wars have been fought over the word, with some insisting it is not a synonym for "detachable magazine." For 80 years, however, it has been so used by manufacturers and the military ."
As a rule of thumb, I tend to assume anyone engaged in the great mag vs. clip debate is very young and inexperienced. A magazine is a booklet made of shiny paper with pictures of naked ladies and you really shouldn't be jerking off while handling firearms . If you'd walked into a gun store 40 years ago asking for magazines, they would have sent you to 7-11. The term has been in common usage by those knowledgable in firearms, for so long, only a newby would insist it's incorrect. In fact, technically, the magazine is that portion of a firearm where the clip is inserted. Understand? You hold the cartridges together with a clip, then insert the clip into the magazine, the magazine, by definition, being the empty space in any firearm where extra ammunition is stored.
Since magazine or mag is currently in common usage these days, you can get away with using the term, as long as you don't insist the traditional term, clip, used exclusively for the better part of 80 years, is incorrect.
- Don Earl
November 7, 2009 12:32PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Shooters & Veterans Know the Difference
There are many vets and plenty of shooters who I know that can distinguish difference between a magazine and a clip because they are indeed two different things. A clip is a strip which loads the ammunition into some rifles while a magazine is metal and uses a spring.
Even if terminology back during WWII meant that "clip" was the common term, those "clips" were most commonly used in bolt-action rifles which were not semi-automatic like today's rifles and handguns. Just because so-called journalists are irresponsible enough to use the wrong terminology doesn't mean we should not hold a higher standard for reporting. If anything, it proves that the media is wrong about their reporting.
- m46607
November 7, 2009 12:51PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'll Just Add...
It's not the weapon, in this case. It's far more the capability of a criminal armed with bad production on the brain level. Any weapon can be used with ill intent, regardless of the load-out. Just because he used a gun that's capable of being loaded with Steel Core 5.7mm bullets , that's a red herring to the real issues with this guy's head and not his armaments. There's no such thing as "cop killer" bullets. I'll get that one out of the way.
There is a standard for body armor. Generally, the higher the protection the more difficult mobility and dexterity becomes. Many law enforcement and military professionals choose to use lower levels or not wear armor at all. This exposes you to a wider range of calibers and hotter loads. With that in mind, even a stopped bullet can kill; trauma and broken bones from the impact itself can lead to bruising, internal bleeding, and death. The point is that some bullets can get through armor and others don't even need to in order to take out the armored personnel.
In this instance, nobody was wearing body armor.
Last I remember, non-armor piercing bullets can penetrate flesh and cloth pretty easily. And from what I've said above, "cop killer" is a behavior and not a function of the weapon. So the problem isn't that Hasan was using a "cop killer weapon" so much as that he was using a "weapon." And if he was using that weapon to these ends, the massacre at Fort Hood, then there was obviously something wrong with him. The weapon functioned - as intended - as a tool. It's the Major's functions - his intentions - that were impeded.
These buzz-words are intentionally designed to both dumb down the audience and scare them towards joining an agenda that involves gun control . Because fear sells ratings.
- m46607
November 7, 2009 1:52PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You're still wrong
RE: "Even if terminology back during WWII meant that "clip" was the common term, those "clips" were most commonly used in bolt-action rifles which were not semi-automatic like today's rifles and handguns"
There's no difference between a clip that feeds a bolt action or self loader. Plus, I can assure you that self loading weapons were in common usage in WWII. The WWII vet who taught me how to how shoot and to handle firearms , and BTW happened to receive a letter of commendation from General Eisenhower, never called them anything but "clips". That was in reference to the semi auto pistol he brought back from Europe.
So, I'll say it a again, "clip" was the ONLY term ANYONE used, long before you were an itch in your daddy's pants. And, again, the NRA recognizes it as proper terminology. And, again, the only kind of person who would attempt to make an issue of it is someone who enjoys a certain level of ignorance as far as firearms are concerned.
PS: I don't disagree with anything in your follow up post. Kevlar won't stop a knife either, but no one goes around talking about "cop killer" kitchen knives.
- Don Earl
November 7, 2009 6:20PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's a Difference of Opinion.
Some choose to use "clip" or "magazine" separately while others choose to not distinguish between the two and simply use "clip." I get that. But either way, most people wouldn't call a clip going into a Springfield rifle a "magazine." As terminology changes, so to must our definitions of the words...
By that right, I'd almost let politicians and the media get the word "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" but I'd only attribute it to a weapon that's used in a crime and not how many bullets it holds or how sleek its exterior is. As you reiterated by mentioning knives, it is how we use the tool and not a characteristic of the tool itself. Assault is a behavior. Weapons themselves can start crimes. And weapons themselves can prevent crimes.
It's the Trigger Safety in one's skull.
Oh, trust me there are times when we've disagreed with each other across threads / articles. But I can respect a difference in perspectives. We all feel strongly because of our experiences or a lack thereof.
- m46607
November 7, 2009 6:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
RE
Actually, as I see it, an "assault rifle" is fully automatic, which isn't sold to civilians. The .223 used in M-16s is so light a round it's only effective as an "assault" weapon on full auto. In "sporting" rifles, it's a popular round for varmint hunting because the light, high velocity bullet shoots fairly flat. It's not legal for deer hunting most places because it isn't considered powerful enough to produce humane, one shot kills on anything much bigger than a ground squirrel.
- Don Earl
November 7, 2009 7:07PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Magazine
Is a term which has referred to a place for storage of ammo since oh, about 600 years.
The operator manuals for all MAGAZINE-FED weapons in the military refer to MAGAZINES, not CLIPS.
Clips do exist, though: A bandolier of 5.56mm ammo has six pockets, each containing three ten-round "clips" of ammo. You load the ammo into the MAGAZINE from the CLIP using a MAGAZINE-LOADER, which is stored in an end pocket of the bandolier.
The M1 Garand fed from an eight-round clip, but the M1 Carbine fed from a 15-round box magazine.
And machine gun ammo comes in "spacings" of rounds, linked together, not in a "belt". (Exception: I think that the cloth devices used during WWII to feed Browning-designed machine guns MAY have been called "belts", but the current correct term is a linked "spacing".)
The easiest way to look at it is this: If it holds ammo, and is enclosed (except for where it feeds ammo), it is a magazine. If it holds ammo, but said cartridges are exposed to the elements, it is a clip.
A box, spring-loaded, which contains and feeds ammo into a firearm: Civilians call 'em clips, professional Soldiers call 'em magazines.
- MikeS
November 8, 2009 6:05AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm familiar with the arguement
RE: "Civilians call 'em clips, professional Soldiers call 'em magazines."
I'm guessing English is your second language or that you don't consider the National Rifle Association a reliable source, or that you don't consider 8 decades of soldiers serving in our armed forces "professionals". Calling clips "detachable magazines" is a recent fetish. I can remember a brief period in the 70s when it became fashionable not to call firearms " guns ".
In my experience, the only kind of people who engage in these kind of fetishes are those putting on airs. In other words, it makes them feel special because they think they learned a word no one else knows. The funny part in this particular instance is it simply demonstrates the speaker is most likely very young and inexperienced. Not being old enough to remember a time not so very long ago when both firearm manufacturers and military personnel universally referred to them as "clips", you assume it's wrong because some other youngster told you so.
- Don Earl
November 8, 2009 12:55PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pot calling the kettle?
My guess is that you served for some time, and your basis of knowledge is limited to the era during which you served.
And that you would argue with a rock if it called itself a "stone".
My service began in 1970, and I still wear the uniform. I'm in Iraq now, headed back to Afghanistan for a third time next July.
How about you?
Correct terminology reduces confusion, helps the mission to succeed, and saves lives.
Get your head outta your fourth point of contact.
- MikeS
November 8, 2009 10:58PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"Short Magazine Lee-Enfield"
A quibble-- The word "Magazine" for something that holds bullets goes back to at least to the 19th century. Apparently, it derives from the use of "Magazine" as the ammo storage room on a warship or in a fort.
E.g., the classic British battle rifle dates from about 1895 and has always been known as the Short-MAGAZINE Lee Enfield. AKA SMLE-- naturally dubbed "Smelly" by the Tommies.
In contrast, a "clip" is something that holds bullets either while inserting (as in military Mausers) or to hold the bullets in the gun, as in Manlichers.
I confess to using the term interchangably, while knowing the difference.
- sesquiculus
November 11, 2009 1:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, but...
I was always taught that semi-automatic/automatic firearms had fixed or detachable magazines that you loaded the ammunition in. The only "clip" that I'm aware of is the clip device which holds eight rounds of ammunition for use in the M1 Garand rifle.
- Grace O Malley
November 11, 2009 10:49PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Funny Page
Just got through reading the funny pages this am. Surprised the jokers who knowingly print this diatribe allow a response. As for the humorous article, my stomach muscles have not heart so much in a long long time. Thanks for the work out of my laugh muscles.
Pretty much all that needs to be said has already been said by the responders in this comment section. Lots of great posts from GREAT AMERICANS.
- The Anti-Brady
November 7, 2009 9:35AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This article reaks of Brady-bias
I started to debunk this article for all the lies and half-truths in it, then I said to myself "why?". Anyone with a knowledge of firearms and this gun can see all these lies for themselfs.
This article is aimed (no pun intended) at those ignorant of the facts and do not know this guns performance charcteristics. Become educated, if you don't, so you won't be lied to by the Brady Bunch anymore.
HJ
- harleyjames
November 7, 2009 9:36AM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Really?
I suspect you might be right, given that this article was post by the Brady Campaign.
If only the real facts of the larger issue here were as obvious.
- Submariner November 8, 2009 2:54AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Perhaps you could elaborate...
This article isn't worth my time anymore.
Let's folow your train of thought...
- harleyjames
November 8, 2009 1:43PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
just saying
This is a many faceted issue. The campaign and it's opponents get attention by putting out any observation that can be construed as pro-gun or pro-control. And lots of people eat that up.
But having looked far and wide, its very hard to find a study, especially a peer reviewed work, that is acceptably unbiased according to one side or the other. Which indicates to me that there is a lot of complexity to the issue, and both sides are spinning statistics and cherry picking facts.
Which holds in ovservation after observation, especialling in articles and debates on this site.
- Submariner November 9, 2009 4:26PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
their worst enemy.
Don't the brady people realize that they just incressed the demand and sales of the "cop killer handgun"? By comming out and condeming it as a gun of mass destruction is a better advertisment than FN could ever come up with. LOL! They should concentrate on the basics, such as stricter punishment for people illigal gun users, and keeping guns out of those people who shouldn't have them. "And everybody knows at least one those people." And stop promoting gun sales .
- takodog
November 7, 2009 12:39PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Brady Bunch Lies
The Brady Bunch would have us believe that there are good guns and bad guns, so that they may incrementally start taking this model or that model off the table for civilian ownership.
Here's a fact: ALL firearms are lethal. A .22 caliber to the head is just as lethal as a 50 caliber to the head. Dead is dead. The only difference in lethality between one gun and another is the person wielding it.
Remarkably but not surprisingly, lunatic anti-gunners will point to this failure of gun control as an reason to expand it. If those soldiers were not forbidden to have their sidearms on base, there would be 10 or more brave Americans still alive today.
The restrictions they would impose on all of us would have the same effect of making us helpless victims, just like Ft Hood, and do nothing to hinder the criminals and the insane from acting with impunity.
Cop Killer gun, my posterior. Here's a label for them. Lawful Citizen Disarmament and Victimization Enablers.
- Maestro Pistolero
November 7, 2009 2:52PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Problem Officer?
So what's the deal with banning the 5.7? If the government ever moved against the people it'd be nice to know there's weapons/ammo out there to level the field a bit.
Also it'd just be like any other gun control law , criminals would still have the weapons.
- idriveajeep
November 7, 2009 5:08PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More uninformed anti-gun propiganda
Blame the inanimate object for the death, not the operator behind it...
Pistols used to take someone on at more than even 50 meters? That's unlikely. Go ahead, Brady Campaign, try to consistently hit something at 50 meters without thousands of rounds of practice. let me know how that went.
and no gun will launch a round faster out of the barrel of it with any significant difference in power. Basically, a 9mm glock will shoot with the same power of a 9mm taurus will shoot blah blah ad nasueum. It's the way the round is made.
oh yeah... and this quote is funny...
"While no police officer has reportedly been killed by a suspect armed with a Five-Seven, it may now have taken the lives of U.S. soldiers."
ESPECIALLY when compared to the title of the article...
"Fort Hood Shooter Used 'Cop Killer' Armor-Piercing Handgun"
Trust me, I'm not for the killing of our soldiers, but it's funny the spin put on stuff, isn't it?
- lvcsslacker
November 7, 2009 5:25PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
For all the anti gun freaks...
If it weren't for guns and those willing to use them... you would more than likely be speaking Japanese or German...if you were alive that is!
- Argenious November 7, 2009 6:07PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Seriously, stupidest post ever
Um, the threat from the Japanese and Germans was that they had guns and were willing to use them.
And now, they have some of the most disciplined gun laws on the planet, by the by.
I try to advocate for access to firearms by civilians, but not if it means putting them in the hands of someone that would argue with such a ridiculous sentiment.
- Submariner November 8, 2009 2:58AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hmm....
You have to realize, also, that there will be good people arguing for bad things, and the other way around too.
- lvcsslacker
November 8, 2009 1:48PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Doesn't matter who argues... it is the
the substance and truth of the argument... opinions are a dime a dozen!
- Argenious November 8, 2009 5:57PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A second thought...
I never take anyone serious that starts a sentence with, "UM'!
- Argenious November 8, 2009 5:59PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I expect you other reply to be deleted
So I will mention here that your prejuedice is almost as bad as your first post.
I am a 15 year veteran of the armed forces, expert medals in rifle and pistole, and my specialty involves some of the most powerful weapons we use today.
- Submariner November 9, 2009 4:31PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You seem to be...
what we in the US armed forces call a blow hard. I fought in the jungles of the Philipines, Nam,Coast of China, others... Expert in all small arms and pistol... I currently carry a Glock 21... others like , browning 9mm... H&K 40... others I can't mention.. SO.. what diference does that make? I don't need to know what you ahve done or where you have been... that has nothing to do with my original comment.
- Argenious November 10, 2009 5:03AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
yawn
You made a grossly incorrect prejudicial statement. Which was still more reasonable that your other post.
Otherwise, it really does not mean anything at all, casting further doubt on their being any tangible reason of bringing it up twice in this thread.
- Submariner November 10, 2009 11:23AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Brady Bunch is known for lying
Any centerfire handgun can utilize "armor piercing bullets ". YOu can also buy handguns that are chambered in rifle calibers such as 5.56 or 7.62 Nato. Either gun using standard hunting or Geneva Convention ammo will blow right through a Level IIA vest.
the brady thugs are known liars. They sensationalize a tragedy because they use the blood of victims of crime to push their agenda of jailing gun owners and confiscating legally owned weapons.
I own weapons for many reasons--that someone like sarah brady might try to impose her sick dreams of gun bans is one of the main reasons
- SWPerformanceCenter
November 7, 2009 10:04PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sensationalist fear-mongering.
The fact that there are disturbed individuals out there who will perpetrate violence is no reason to surrender our freedoms. The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to protect the right of the people to be capable of armed revolution against a tyrranical government . Should the need arise for Americans to resist their government, the same weapons that are used by crazy people to hurt soldiers and police will be exactly what we need. The right to bear military grade weapons is a vital right that protects all the others.
- richardsonkr
November 8, 2009 10:03AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not worthy of futher disscussion
What a waste of my time...
I'd rather intelligently discuss:
1. seperating the case facts from fiction
2. the on-going investigation issues
3. death-by-cop actions of the perpatrator.
4. the perps reasoning behind his actions
5. the dispicable way our military /goverment leader reacted to its aftermath.
6. do we change our military bases from gun-free killing zones into heavily armed and patrolled bases again? for or against
Anyone interested?
HJ
- harleyjames
November 8, 2009 1:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The last man...
In irony, the last man standing will be the one with the most bullets !
- Argenious November 9, 2009 1:30AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Huh?
The last one standing should be the one with the most accuracy, not the most ammo ( bullets is an incorrect term).
On second thought, in a massacre like this one, the last man standing is usually the mass murderer, especially if he has a monopoly on the ammo. Is that what you mean?
- Jim In Houston
November 9, 2009 3:04PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pay attention...
in a battle/ war those with the most resources win!
- Argenious November 9, 2009 4:17PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
dot dot dot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution
Off the top of my head...
- Submariner November 10, 2009 1:20AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So whats your point...
posting some past wars/battles doesn't apply to the what I said!
I don't think you get it.
- Argenious November 10, 2009 4:56AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response
I'm going to have to agree with Submariner here. Having the most resources/men/ammo does not mean that you will win.
- headache62
November 11, 2009 12:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How many battle have you been in?
None I am sure... until you have some experience or facts...
- Argenious November 11, 2009 3:09PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If there weren't so many dumb gun restrictions on that base...
the men and women would have been armed as well and been able to defend themselves...
It seems "The Brady Campaign" lacks basic logic and common sense.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=218146
- CivilRadiant
November 11, 2009 11:33AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
shoddy reasoning
"It was a handgun that was designed to fire bullets through body armor..."
... which it did not do. The same attack could have been carried out with any weapon.
But I knew the gun control gang would be out trying to use this to their political advantage. Thanks for not disappointing.
- ChrisB
November 11, 2009 11:46AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Just wondering
The current law bans handgun caliber ammo that is _designed_ to be armour piercing, e.g. via steel cores.
I know that rifle bullets that are _not_ designed to be armour piercing will indeed penetrate soft body armour, due to high sectional density (ratio of weight to diameter) and velocity.
Bullets for this handgun do indeed have a high velocity and a small diameter; does sheer velocity cause conventional ammo (i.e., no steel core) for this gun penetrate soft body armour rated for, say, .357magnum?
- fsilber
November 11, 2009 12:23PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Will we learn from this?
You should not fault Nidal Hasan, he was only doing what he had been trained to do. As a Jihadist, his religion teaches him to kill infidels. You should not be surprised, as there is has been going on since the sixth century.
I do blame the federal government , in particular the Defense Department. It is their ignorant rule preventing the possession of firearms on government and military installations that provides these target rich environments for our Jihadist enemies.
If Hasan had shot one or two soldiers before being gunned down by the others, I would lay those soldier's death at Hasan's feet.
The fact that he was able to shoot more than 40 soldiers is a direct result of the Defense Department's asinine regulations . There were almost 300 soldiers, all who had been trained to handle firearms and shoot, in the building with the attack occurred. None were armed! And it took a civilian officer from another building to intervene.
This is the second worst terrorist attack on US soil. Will we learn from it? I don't think so.
Semper Fi,
- ScotchLead
November 11, 2009 12:07PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Consider Isreal
Their military personell MUST be armed at all times. That means in the bathroom, at a wedding or on their bases.
How many shootings of this nature have they had?
- Cuandoman
November 12, 2009 8:52AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
LIES, LIES, LIES
Body Armor doesn't stop bullets as well as you think. Most rifle calibers will penetrate without any kind of special ammo as they are designed to take point blank hits from hand gun caliber ammo only. Some bigger caliber handguns also will penetrate them regardless of ammo used. This weapon(5.7x28) is a poor choice for terminal ballistics even if it gets through a vest. It's small diameter, and hyper speed pokes a small hole that many times seals itself. It's for this reason that very few countries ever adapted it for military use. Too bad this nut didn't choose the Brady Campaign headquartes for his shooting rampage as unfortunately it could possibly be the only thing that would ever end their lies and half truths from being unleashed on the public.
- tjones86
November 11, 2009 12:10PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More shiny horse crap from the ignorant
Every time someone dies at gun point, the ignorant run around wringing their hands. Unless you know what an FN57 is and is for, keep your face shut. What do you expect on a military base? A marshmallow launcher? What is truly a shame was all the unarmed people that died or were injured because they were not armed.
Let's hear it for the armed among them that STOPPED the threat. They are the heroes.
I served. I remain armed. It is better to be armed and never use it than to not have it and need it.
As far as the "Brady Bunch", the only thing they prevent is thinking.
- truthseeker1
November 11, 2009 1:08PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Really a weak, rather specialized round
Regular semiautomatic piston rounds such as 9mm luger or 45 ACP are considerably more powerful than the 5.7 mm (.22 cal ) round used by Hasan.
Thus, they have considerably more recoil. This makes sub-machineguns using these full-size pistol rounds hard to aim for more than a couple of rounds.
For this reason, there have long been attempts to develop a low-power, high-velocity, low-recoil 22 cal round specifically for use in light compact subguns. The 5.7 round is the culmination of this effort.
Because of its high-velocity, the 5.7 round can penetrate some vests. But so can (e.g.) 7.62 mm Tokarev. This is an obsolete .30 cal Warsaw-pact round with 2-3 times the energy of the 5.7 round and about the same velocity.
Yet nobody uses Tokarev because it was found to have relatively-poor stopping power. Even the commies gave it up for a 9mm pistol round.
- sesquiculus
November 11, 2009 1:17PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Tokarev much more penetrating than 5.7
This article:
http://www.shootingtimes.com/handgun_reviews/fnusg_021207/index.html
Compares the penetration of the Tokarev, AKA "7.62x25mm", with the 5.7 round. The Tokarev is significantly superior. Yet nobody really uses it anymore, except arguably the Chinese.
- sesquiculus
November 11, 2009 1:55PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Stupid Reporters
This is in line with the simple minded student reporters who wanted to ban "nail guns ," or the idiot reporter who went on a tirade about "fingerprint resistant" handguns. Unless you have somehow sharpened the handgun and thrust it into a police officer, no gun is "armor piercing."
No newspaper would be so foolish as to publish this kind of loony garbage, so why post the nonsense here.
- Hans
November 11, 2009 4:14PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There are laws...and then there are laws..
For those of you who - apparently- believe that 'If there were a law forbidding...' then these murders would not have happened.
1.* ALL* military bases have rules defining just who does and does not have permission to bear arms. These rules have the full force and effect of federal law. Major Nidal, being a psychiatrist and not in a combat zone, was not authorized to be armed. Violation of this is a Military (Federal) Offense punishable by death or life in prison at hard labor .
2. What about the law (s) against murder ?? Major Nidal violated civil, military and federal law by willful killing. Given the information released to date, he could have done much the same damage with an axe or machete.
The issue is not the tool. The issue is the will and conviction of the perpetrator to carry out the crime . The tool or tools can be made or acquired just about anywhere given the knowledge.
- Olderman
November 11, 2009 5:48PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reporting 101-research before you write.
From Wikipedia:
"The Five-Seven and 5.7x28mm ammunition were the target of brief controversy in the United States in 2004[16] when it was claimed by the Brady Campaign that commercially available SS192 penetrated a Level IIA vest in testing .[19] However, armor piercing variants of the 5.7x28mm are only offered to law enforcement and military customers.[6] Commercially available variants of the 5.7x28mm cartridge are classified by the ATF as being not armor piercing[17] and it was claimed that the SS192 and SS196 cartridge variants did not penetrate Kevlar vests in tests conducted by FNH USA.[17]
The Five-Seven pistol and 5.7x28mm cartridge were specifically targeted for a U.S. federal ban in 2005, which failed.[20]"
Thus, unless Hasan was using
"the armor piercing variants of the 5.7x28mm...only offered to law enforcement and military customers," this article has little relevance, as so far as I know none of the victims were wearing body armor and they could have been just as easily killed/injured by a 38 Special (and Hasan was also carrying a revolver, but he was wounded before being able to fire it. According to e mails I read, reportedly from eye witnesses, Hasan was no combat shooter, and in was put down while fumbling with his magazines.
- orion 8591
November 11, 2009 7:24PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gun-Free Zone Claims More Victims
Ever since President Bill Clinton created the law in 1993 that all military bases are to be "gun-free zones" this tragedy as been headed toward us. Gun-free zones are the most fertile ground for violence and the criminal knows that.
In the case of Fort Hood it is a base filled with soldiers trained and trusted with firearms but nevertheless they are banned form carrying them. If they cannot be trusted with firearms they what is the use in training them? Had the base been filled with trained and armed military personal, this would not have happened and if it did it would not have been so tragic. It would have been stopped long before the five minutes that slipped by while the police were in route.
Hasan's actions would have been met with a barrage of bullets that would have ended the massacre before it took such a toll. That is guaranteed!
I doubt this issue will be raised by the anti-gun, liberty killing politicians, but it is a valid point. Gun-free zones are full of helpless victims and that makes the mouths of criminals, thirsty to kill, water .
NO gun law on the books has ever been proven to even slow gun crime commission down, much less make stop it. They do however tilt the game in the favor of gun-totting criminals who laugh at such laws.
- GlenSpicer
November 11, 2009 10:57PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Responsibility of the Killer
Let’s stop blaming the weapon and the supposed harassment this traitorous killer was probably never a victim of. I am an American born citizen of Lebanese descent, a veteran of the Iraq War, and a proud member of the NRA. I'm also sick and tired of all the lame excuses by the Brady Bunch and the apologists who think that the 9/11 attack and the global jihad against the West is the fault of the West. Perhaps, personnel aboard bases here in the U.S. will now be allowed to carry personal weapons just as they already do outside of the gate where concealed carry is legal . We presently have 45+ states that have some sort of CCW/OCW laws that allow law abiding citizens to bear arms. Now we need to clean up the so-called “gun free zones” like college campuses, military bases, shopping malls, and other “checkerboard” crime zones so that people can defend themselves against a sudden armed attack. The Justice Department’s own Bureau of Justice Statistics bears out the total fallacy of gun control and the effectiveness of an armed citizenry.
- OIFtoUSC
November 13, 2009 6:57AM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
the FN 5.7
I am not a gun person in the sense that I can speak to the pros and cons of a certain handgun or rifle or caliber. I simply know what I like to shoot and what I carry. I have a FN 5.7 that I carry. I am 54 and a woman and although it is not my gun of choice (Glock 21 is) the FN is easier for me to carry.
The FN is not going to be a street gun - as it is very expensive. Once I tried it and liked it - it took a while for us to save the money to buy it - Many, many handguns in America can be purchased for less.
I love the picture chosen - lets just add some goodies to make it look bigger and worse than it is. Just more lies to get an agenda through.
Autos kill more people in America than guns do - but the point of big government taking over control of all aspects of the citizen's life is that no citizen is armed. It is why our Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution - to keep us Free.
Put people like Hasan to death or in prison - no possibility of parole and no plea bargins or deals with any crime committed at gun point - and America will begin to see a reduction in gun crimes.
For the rest of American citizens - I still have to ask - What part of 'shall not be infringed' - does the Brady Campaign and DC not understand?
- wardmama4
November 13, 2009 7:00AM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Another Brady FRAUD
This is a predictable response from an organization which is openly anti-Constitution. The ammo they are trying to refer to was BANNED in the US about the time it hit the market, and effectively was never imported into the US.
I also have no doubt they used the lowest possible level of PROTECTIVE vest (NOT bullet resistent) to bias their supposed results to fit their agenda. Afterall to do otherwise would require honesty and an understanding of physics - neither of which are usefull when your pitch is based solely on emotions.
- Explorer1
November 13, 2009 11:59AM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Continue ban on personal firearms on mil. bases
When I was in service [57-65] personnel living
on base were forbidden from keeping private firearms --period. On some small sites, hunting
and marksmanship guns cud be left with the base
police and checked out if departing and checked
in when returning...At a large installation lik
e Ft Hood there shud be NO private arms on base
as it is impossible to prevent deranged folk
doing what Hasan did. Columbine HS was a lot
smaller and still was a bloodbath. DOD must get
all non- military arms off all bases ASAP and,
like rape and other crimes, remind ALL person-
nel that possession is subject to dismissal [of
ficers] and a Dishonorable Discharge plus long
hard time [enlisted]...Military bases are under
absolute control and shud be: There is no excus
e for any of our military members being killed
by anyone else--especially as they prepare to
deploy abroad, against our foes...Aaron Allen..
- Aaron
November 14, 2009 12:44AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Argument weak. Change topics--that's the Brady Bunch.
1. The post was under a state of disarmament in this hall. That's exactly what the Brady Bunch recommends.
2. A gunman snuck a gun in and opened fire in this gun-free zone. He's making a common sense decison, selecting a defense-free zone to commit his mayhem--the kind of zone recommended by the Brady bunch.
3. The police respond, as they are the ones with weapons. In as little as four minutes, IIRC. Again, exactly following the Brady recommendations that only the police be armed.
4. The gunman is neutralized by police--and the mayhem is over in about seven minutes. And, in those seven minutes, thirteen people are killed and what--31?--are wounded.
Exacatly following the protocols and policies of the Brady Bunch.
Only those with a delusional set of principles would consider Brady firearms policies rational.
- jfh
November 14, 2009 11:21AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Media Whore
The Brady Campaign is simply a media whore who is trying to boost their revenues with this fundraising letter. A rubber-stamp bought and paid for from a few second and third tier police associations lends an air of respectability to this load of tripe. Facts are not relevant when your only goal is to separate dollars from the anti-gun, firearm-ignorant sheeple on their mailing list. They mention their brothers-in-arms (pardon the pun) Chuckles Schumer and Elliott Engel who presumably are also using the innocent blood of our servicemen and women to line their re- election campaign coffers and boost their polling results.
- kzeman
November 14, 2009 2:01PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.