Alleged shooter in yesterday's Fort Hood massacre bought his "cop killer" pistol legally at Guns Galore, in Texas. The ammo can pierce bulletproof vests. (via Danger Room)
Fort Hood Shooter bought "cop killer" at "Guns Galore"
Leave a comment
More items
Transborder Immigrant Tool helps Mexicans cross over safely
Vice has an interview with b.a.n.g lab's Ricardo Dominguez about the Transborder Immigrant Tool, a GPS device based on a cheap cell phone that will help Mexican immigrants safely cross the border." For the past few years you've been working on the Transborder Immigrant Tool, which sounds like i... More.
Submit your toddler's science questions!
When I was guesting on BoingBoing last spring, my friends' son Will wanted to know whether cockroaches had a penis. I enjoyed tracking down the surprisingly complicated answer, so I thought I'd keep the theme going now that I'm on full-time. I'm hoping to answer a Science Question from a Toddler onc... More.
I am unicorn, destroyer of ponies
Image link. Devin McGrath. (via galadarling via Susannah Breslin) ... More.
Internet ghost-towns: the blocked IPs where the bad guys used to live
When a block of IP addresses or a collection of domain names becomes associated with bad action -- spamming, jabbering, denial-of-servicing -- various ad-hoc Internet groups will add it to a blacklist of "rogue IPs" or "badware domains" that are blocked at a very low level in the network. The prob... More.
Science of fiction
I've just sat in on a presentation at the Canadian Reading Summit by one of the editors of OnFiction, an online scientific journal devoted to understanding the psychology of fiction reading. It was an incredibly exciting look into the neurology of fiction as an "embodied simulation." The journal lo... More.
RSS Feed
The ammo can pierce bulletproof vests
Wonder where he got his car, and whether it can smash through police roadblocks.
Proud gun owner and user here, John. No need to troll.
Cars serve many purposes, only one of which is to smash through police roadblocks.
Point of the post wasn't to demonize responsible gun ownership and use. Just an observation of details in a story.
There is armor-piercing ammo for the Five-Seven, but it is sold to law-enforcement only. The Five-Seven fires the same cartridge used in the P-90 (and the semi-auto PS-90) made famous by Stargate SG-1.
Calling the Five-Seven a "cop-killer gun" is pure hype.
If only he had bought his "cop killer" pistol illegally, all those people would be alive today.
Wait...
There are many calibers of armor piercing ammunition available, not just the type used in the pistol. Protective armor is rated according to its ability to resist penetration.
I don't think the people who got shot were wearing body armor, anyway. It just seems like an extraneous detail put in by gun control advocates to make the weapon seem extra scary. Well, hell, any gun is scary if it's pointed at you, body armor or no.
#3, I gotta say that was my first reaction too...
Cop-killer ammo, yes, cop-killer gun, no way.
So I checked out the remtek site
http://www.remtek.com/arms/fn/57/
Their description:
"FN's newest contribution the handgun's evolution is named the Five-seveN®. This 20-round pistol fires a 5.7mm bullet that will defeat most body armor in military service around the world today. Essentially, the Five-seveN® represents a quantum leap forward in the handgun's suitablity for close engagements by delivering the type of performance that was previously confined to rifles or carbines. Elements of this performance include:
High magazine capacity: The Five-seveN® comes standard with 20-round magazine.
High stopping power: The Five-seveN® fires the 5.7x28mm SS190 Ball round which reliably penetrates Kevlar helmets and vests as well as CRISAT protection.
High hit probability: The Five-seveN's® extremely low recoil impulse results in virtually no muzzle climb, thereby facilitating fast and controllable follow-up shots. "
OK, I'll go along with calling it a cop-killer here...
anyone talking about the 5.7mm round as "powerful" needs to cut back on their daily hype intake. It's about as "powerful" as a .22WMR, which is to say, good enough for rabbits and woodchucks, but not even legal for deer in most states.
Additionally, the armor piercing ammo is only available to military and law enforcement in the US.
If you make cop-killer guns illegal, the only people who own them will be criminals.
The ATF classifies the ammunition available to civilians as not being armor piercing, and I'm inclined to believe the ATF's testing is worth trusting, especially if they stood by the classification after previous political controversies about this gun being a "cop killer".
It's always my first question after a shooting like this. Where did they get the guns? How was it possible for a disturbed individual to legally purchase a controversial weapon like this?
My second thought with regards to this case: What drugs was the med doc taking? Is it possible he went off the deep end after dabbling too heavily in own (and the army's) prescription drug arsenal? I wonder if we'll ever get to know what brain cocktail made this guy flip out so bad. I think they should cut his head off and study the results.
I think that the real point of this post is that Guns Galore's website design is a crime.
I always thought the five-seven was touted as a gun that, because of its low cartridge size, would piece body armor. Now, it was also touted that its small size would also cause fewer deaths...
Sorry, but the armor piercing ammo for the Five Seven is simply NOT available for civilian use. The hype surrounding the Five Seven is similar to that of the Glock when people believed it was made entirely of plastic and could defeat airport metal detectors.
Well now I am just curious... what type of gun would Xeni Jardin own and use.
I imagine it is a) powered by steam and black powder b) definitely has some kind of cute cartoon character laser etched on it somewhere c) has served as the inspiration for original art by a lesser known LA artist d) was modded by her personally or Mr. Jalopy himself e) the steam is produced through a renewable energy source and the black powder is sustainably made f) has two modes "bullet" and "slow kitten launch w/ confetti"
About right?
No.
Beretta 9mm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Five-seven#Controversy :
"Controversy
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.[22] However, armor piercing variants of the 5.7x28mm are only offered to law enforcement and military customers.[23] Commercially available variants of the 5.7x28mm cartridge are classified by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) as being not armor piercing[24] and it was claimed that the SS192 and SS196 cartridge variants did not penetrate Kevlar vests in tests conducted by FNH USA.[24]"
The ammo he was able to purchase legally is not armor piercing. Perhaps there is some of the armor piercing ammo somewhere on Fort Hood, but it's veryvery unlikely that an Army psychologist could gain access to it.
"Alleged shooter in yesterday's Fort Hood massacre bought his pistol legally at Guns Galore, in Texas."
There. Fixed it for ya. If you're going to use "alleged" then why use the scare quotes and "cop killer" and mention that ammo most likely not used in the crime could be armor piercing?
I'm surprised that there were not more people on the base carrying concealed weapons or guards or someone who could have put a stop to him quicker. Or are people not allowed to carry firearms on military bases?
It says he bought the gun well before the attack took place. And there's been very little put forth so far that shows he showed any outward signs of being disturbed. If the Army had seen something they felt was a problem it should have been reported. People with criminal backgrounds and psychiatric problems aren't as free to purchase weapons at a store.
Also the ammo available to civilians is soft tip or hollow point, those are types that are not effective at penetrating body armor, and in this situation that wasn't needed.
This pistol was the side-arm most often used on BSG. They used a small attachment underneath the barrel to make it look different.
That ad is pretty obviously targeted toward military and police procurement departments, of course they're going to talk up the stopping power of what is essentially a glorified .22 caliber round.
If you're going to use "alleged" then why use the scare quotes and "cop killer"
Perhaps you are unaware of this fact, but the actual purpose of quotation marks is to surround a quote. The article that Xeni linked to used the term, thus the quotation marks. If you've come to regard quotation marks solely as a scare tactic, perhaps it's time to consult a professional about curing that phobia.
This pistol was the side-arm most often used on BSG. They used a small attachment underneath the barrel to make it look different.
Wait what? Wow. That is random and fascinating.
URL/citation, please?
Very true. That's why cops are constantly being shot here in the UK. Oh wait, no they're not.
I'm with the other posters. Much as I detest the gun culture in my home state there is no indication that the gun in question was loaded with "cop killer" ammunition Presumably there are also other makes/models that are capable of firing an armor piercing round too?
Stargate SG-1 and BSG, huh?
So, you guys, I'm sorry I referenced the fact that this weapon is commonly referred to as "cop-killer."
I should have typed "Cylon killer."
Only on Boing Boing, man. Honestly.
http://www.remtek.com/arms/fn/57/
I'm clearly a pussy, because reading the fact sheet on this product causes immediate nausea -- the section "High stopping power".
@Sam #17: "Or are people not allowed to carry firearms on military bases?"
It's up to the base commander, but as a general, and not written, rule, allowing concealed carry on your base is a quick way to end your career and never get a promotion. Or at least it's seen that way, so very few bases allow it.
Hell, there was a minor uproar a few years ago at Fort Hood when the MPs hassled the members of an Arkansas unit training down there for wearing Bowie knives. Since that violates Texas state law they wanted them to remove the knives from their uniforms, even though the base is federal property and not subject to Texas law. Also they are frikin' soldiers, and if you can't trust them with Bowie knives, can we rust them with M16s/M4s/SAWs/M240s/grenades/M1 Abrahms/Bradley Fighting Vehicles/TOWS/Apaches/or anything else that goes bang?
I know that the last time I was down there there was a sign saying no firearms were allowed on post, but that has been a few years. I will ask my cousin who is stationed there next time I talk to him if they are allowed to carry there. I know Carswell does not allow them on post (sorry, Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth), nor does Dyess, Randolph or Lackland in San Antonio, and whatever base is out in Del Rio. My dad has to travel to those bases quite a bit for his job, and has always made veryvery sure to get every round of ammo out of his truck if we'd been out shooting or something, because it would get him in serious trouble if he tried to enter the bases with them and was caught.
Or are people not allowed to carry firearms on military bases?
Correct. In general, no one is allowed to carry firearms on a military base unless they are in a training exercise, or on their way to or from one.
The responder who took down the alleged shooter was a civilian policewoman. The military takes its weapons very seriously, and issues them when they're actually going to be used.
OK, cross-post. gandalf23, I heard on NPR this morning that soldiers aren't allowed to carry weapons around at Fort Hood except as I outlined.
He thought it'd be more practical to do what he did with something that was specifically designed to kill other human beings. I guess a car wasn't his first choice.
Xeni, what the hell is "responsible gun ownership and use" supposed to mean?!
@ failix
Well, to me, responsible gun ownership means that one
* receives training for the weapon
* purchases, possesses, and uses it with a valid license and in accordance with all applicable state, federal, and local laws (including laws pertaining to concealing/carrying the weapon outside of one's home),
* maintains the weapon in good condition + safe working order
* stores it in a secure manner where it can't be accessed by children or thieves or drunk in-laws (lockable safe in your house, generally)
* treats the weapon as srs bizness, and does not handle or operate it while intoxicated or engage in other reckless behavior
* possesses it with the intent to use it in a lawful manner (i.e., only in self defense when one's life is in imminent danger, like if a bad guy breaks into one's home and is pointing a gun at you)
I live in LA, where the police to people ratio is about 1 cop per 400 citizens. There's a lot of crime against law-abiding folks here. I live in a community where I feel like I can't count on first responders to respond to life-threatening crimes in time to protect me and my family, not with those numbers. I feel pretty good about owning a gun, responsibly.
XJ
xeni, gun isn't "commonly" referred to as a cop-killer. It is refered to cop killer by small group of people injecting controversy. As an owner (and presumably shooter) of the Beretta Too much loaded, I'm sure you have a good idea of the lethality of small caliber arms.
A good description:
Controversial, imported, pistol with high capacity
magazine
Loaded terminology is bad. The war on drugs and the war on guns are virtually the same, but many people will come down separately on the issues due to ideology. They are ideology based positions. In both cases, opponents would make progress if they turned off their blinders.
Seen from another country (I'm european), that kind of argument after every "shooting" in the US seems a little surreal. Just wanted to let you know that the rest of the world is a bit confused. What are you guys doing with guns anyway?
I have to admit, the ownership part does sound responsible. On the other hand, I still don't see how the use of a gun for self-defense can be responsible. The subject of a threat can't objectively evaluate the situation; the bad-guy may not have a gun, or even be a bad guy. In a state of shock and/or panic, the risk of making an irreversible mistake by pulling the trigger, is far greater with a gun than with pepper spray or a securely barricaded house. Is it responsible to take such a risk?
"I have to admit, the ownership part does sound responsible. On the other hand, I still don't see how the use of a gun for self-defense can be responsible. Is it responsible to take such a risk?"
Tell you what, why don't you decide what the risk is that you'll take by being prepared to defend yourself, nd lt thr ppl wh rn't nrtc cwrds mk thr wn dcsns?
"Calling the Five-Seven a "cop-killer gun" is pure hype."
Exactly. You can kill cops (or anyone) with just about any gun, or a car, or a baseball bat, or commonly available poisons, or ....
Xeni, good on ya for being a responsible gun owner. I realize a portion of the happy mutants are hoplophobes* and there's already a bunch of anti-gun responses posted here.
I own guns because
1. I can.
2. Self defense is a basic human right.
3. Shooting is a fun hobby.
My guns must be defective though, because they have never harmed anyone or caused a single crime.
*hoplophobia: irrational fear of weapons.
LOL
I realize a portion of the happy mutants are hoplophobes*
Congratulations on your psychic powers. Unfortunately, they're not that accurate. We have very few anti-gun comments.
Unfortunately there's not a lot of places left in the LA area to practice firing guns, at least not in my part of the county.
Outdoor ranges have systematically been shut down after housing was constructed near them and residents complained about the noise pollution.
It's a shame, really. Practice shooting is great fun.
Reposting a comment from a friend here:
Yet another REAL WORLD proof that on body carry as for personal protection is FTW!
Not in your car or in your book bag or as locked in your desk at work.
On YOUR body.
The officer was as described; "Very close to the incident scene".
The response time was described as being; "Very quickly...Reportedly in around three minutes".
The shooter is confirmed to have fired and reloaded to fire some more; killing 13 people and wounding 30 others.
To really draw the point home below is a video showing how loooooong three minutes is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPngX_4qcw
Imagine being under active and immediate incoming close quarters fire for this length of time, with little if any means of active ability to defend yourself.
Also consider that a three minute response time is ONE HALF to ONE FOURTH that of the average response time for civilian police. So say the DOJ. Other select police response times as around the country can be found at this thread from April;
http://www.gunatics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5147
To put things another way, watch that video two to four times over as back to back.
Imagine the numbers of persons who would have been killed had the shooter had more time, as per averages, prior to police response and intervention.
When a person asks why you carry arms on your person.
A serious and not at all glib response would be; 'Because I can't afford to keep a cop at my side 24x7.'
"irrational fear of weapons."
While I may have some irrational fears, believe me my "fear" of weapons isn't one of them (I'd call it a disgust more than a fear). Why don't you just play paintball if you think shooting is a fun hobby?
Yeah right, now consider that instead of playing cowboy, the crowd could've immobilized the attacker after having shown signs of hostility, if he just didn't own that gun huh?
Curious: Xeni, why not just ditch the whole "cop killer" slugline since *you* clearly know it's just hype and misleading? Perpetuating an inaccurate sound bite with the disclaimer/justification of "Well, we're just quoting what the original story said" is intellectual dishonesty and a disservice to your devoted, intelligent readers - you can always fall back on substantive content and controversy to generate traffic on a story without this kind of approach.
To our non-US readers: We own guns in the US because we started our country as a rebellion against tyranny and some fears run deep - they remain a final bastion against tyranny. Now if only we required IQ tests for ownership... :-(
The "cop killer" phrase was part of the original article. IMHO it's better to quote directly rather than paraphrase or put words into the mouths of the original author.
Besides, it generates a healthy discussion. Just hope it stays civil and friendly. :)
To non-US readers. There are many parts of the United States where IF you have cell phone reception with which to call the police, it may be half an hour, an hour before they arrive. The United States is a really, really big place, geographically. When the time between when you call first responders and they arrive exceeds the amount of time required to rape and murder your entire family, take everything of value and escape with time to spare, a weekend class and $300 to purchase the same tool the cops will use when they arrive seems like a reasonable investment.
This proves merely that a trained professional can use her firearm responsibly, nay, heroically. Evidence for the wisdom of carrying guns for all of us it most definitely isn't.
I'm not convinced that more anti-gun legislation is the cure for our society's ills, but when a weapon is touted by the manufacturer for its ability to pierce body armor I don't think calling it a "cop killer" is unfair.
This cop was, erm, shot. With a gun, even. In the UK. My guess is that there are more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/4966664/Policeman-murdered-in-Northern-Ireland-named-as-Stephen-Carroll.html
Criminals can (and do) purchase and use body armor as well. Police departments need the ability to respond to that situation. Those advertisements are for organizations making decisions about bulk purchases. There are just shy of a million police officers in the United States. It's a massive market.
The wikipedia article makes it pretty clear that the weapon is marketed for SWAT teams, who would be more likely than most to encounter the scenario of a criminal with armor.
This is probably the most informed and well reasoned response I've ever seen in a debate on guns. Bravo.
The FN 5.7mm round is not a "cop killer", it fires a low weight, high velocity bullet that happens to defeat aramid type body armor better than bigger, slower pistol rounds. It's not magic.
They're also priced at a ridiculous premium to other firearms, both pistols and rifles. I'd bet the FN 5.7mm pistols and carbines have very, very low usage in crimes, they're just so damn expensive.
If your intent was to "kill cops" you'd show up with a deer rifle. ALL centerfire rifle rounds will slice right through soft body armor without so much as a how do you do.
Your guess is wrong.
The event of a police being shoot is so rare that is a matter of national news in the UK. As a matter of fact people dying of knife wounds some times is.
People in the US just don't realize the levels of violence that they consider normal, that a member of the media boasts about gun ownership is unthinkable in most parts of Europe, even the parts were gun ownership is widespread.
I am also certain you know that Northern Ireland is not an entirely functional place in any case.
Violent crimes against persons:
US: 466 crimes per 100,000 residents
UK: 2034 crimes per 100,000 residents
"People in the US just don't realize the levels of violence that they consider normal"
To everyone pointing out that the duty rounds that can pierce body armor and Kevlar helms are only available to law enforcement and military: Have you forgotten that it was ARMY MAJOR Nidal Malik Hasan firing the gun?
you have a citation for that?
No personal firearms are allowed on military installations. Some bases have a slight exception allowing them to be transported unloaded to/from base housing and the range, but certainly no where is there concealed carry allowed.
Furthermore, per Geneva conventions, no weapons are allowed in medical facilities. Even if all the GI's had check out M-16's from the armory, they would have had to leave them by the door to enter the pre-deployment health center where the shooting occurred.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victims
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
This entire discussion, my own comments included, leave me feeling horrible. I guess I needed to see my own role in the polarizing and escalating debate on the gun ownership. Gross. I lay down my arms, so to speak. My own participation in this debate releases a kind of toxic sludge into my very own veins and I srsly need to watch that. No more gun debate. It brings out the worst in us, don't you agree? To me, on the tail of this unthinkable massacre, the debate feels a bit like salt in the wounds.
Violent crimes against persons:
US: 466 crimes per 100,000 residents
UK: 2034 crimes per 100,000 residents
Yeah, but the suburban neighborhood I live in has 1/60th of the crime rate of downtown Boston. It all depends where you live.
The other gun the psychiatrist had was a 357. At point blank range, both of these are lethal. The 357 1087 ft-lbs, the 5.7 only 320 but the police officers might only have been 358 ft-lbs. The more energy, the more likely one shot kills or disables. Top 50 .cal sniper gun 12000 ft-lbs
Also, the Ft Hood case is interesting. All guns on base are locked up. Only police have guns. You couldn't get more gun control.
(Re: comparison of violent crime between US and Europe)
Should give you the original article, indication of who is linking to it, and constructive arguments about the comparison of official data between countries.
There are no such thing as "Cop-Killer" guns. There are no such thing as "Cop-Killer" bullets. Most bullets will pass through the lower-grade Kevlar vests, and most cops don't even wear Kevlar. The term was created by bad journalists.
Rifle rounds and shotgun slugs will work on any-grade Kevlar. Aside from shot shells, it's not really humane to hunt with something that can't penetrate a vest.
Armor-piercing ammunition of comparable size tends to actually be a lot less damaging to unarmored flesh, because it passes right through without damage or deformation. Most damage by a bullet results from deformation and tumbling of the soft lead. Needle-shaped bullets will pass through any body armor, but it will take a hundred to kill someone because of the clean exit wounds. Steel-core and hard-jacket bullets don't deform at all. Tungsten & DU rounds are tightly access-controlled.
I'm personally anti-gun, but blatantly fraudulent, panic-inducing terms just lower the debate beyond a level where progress can be made.
You would be wrong. Apparently, in America, a police officer is killed every 57 hours. Multiplied by 5 to be equivalent to the UK is 285 hours, or about every fortnight. If any police officer is killed anywhere in the UK, it makes national news. And I can tell you that a police officer is not killed every two weeks here.
If you want to play that game, the US has a murder rate three times that of the UK. But I'm not sure I trust these stats anyway, given crime reporting will vary between countries.
I have never met an irresponsible gun owner, and where I'm from, everyone has guns.
Obviously irresponsible and/or dangerous gun owners exist, but the vast, vast, vast majority are just like Xeni.
So many times with people who are vehemently anti-gun, I've found, if you can just get them to go out to the range, let someone teach them how to use one, and let them squeeze off a few rounds, the response is, "...oh." They really aren't that special. You just have to be careful where you point them.
In fact, I don't own any (in the US--I live in Japan, though) is that I find them awfully expensive for something that I don't feel I need and which come with a pile of hassle. I hate cleaning them. I hate gun oil. I hate standing outside in the wind plunking away at targets (and sucking terribly) for practice. And I also know that even if I were in a situation that called for firepower, my aim is so bad that I'd be useless.
Very mundane reasons for not owning a very mundane piece of kit over which too much fuss is made.
"To non-US readers. There are many parts of the United States where IF you have cell phone reception with which to call the police"
Do you think europeans rely on the police when they are being assaulted for no reason on the streets? For example, do you think I took the time to call the police when some psycho attacked me with a friggin paddle (yeah a paddle... weird eh?)?! I had to rely on my fists, and I was lucky the psycho couldn't just buy a gun or I'd be dead today.
"When the time between when you call first responders and they arrive exceeds the amount of time required to rape and murder your entire family, take everything of value and escape with time to spare"
I'm the one being accused of having irrational fears?
but the vast, vast, vast majority are just like Xeni.
So their life is constantly threatened and they need to defend their families? You guys are either very important people, real gangstas, or just suffer from paranoia.
And you wouldn't need a gun if less bad guys didn't own one. A gun is a tool that provides an enormous amount of power. No wonder people feel tempted to break into strangers home with such power. It's even less surprising when look at social inequalities in L.A. for example.
"you wouldn't need a gun if less bad guys didn't own one"
Correction: replace "less bad guys didn't own one" with "less bad guys owned one".
Whatever. Enjoy your gun debate. I'm just glad that in my country the only place you see handguns is on the belt of a POlees or in Cops.
"But if we can't legally buy handguns specifically designed to shoot repeated, accurate shots in a short space of time then only the criminals' kids will have guns in schools"
Pfft. And to think that there even has to be a debate about legalising weed. YOU GUYS ARE BACKWARDS. I suppose I should just be happy that the US doesn't dictate world firearms policy too.
"I'm the one being accused of having irrational fears?"
I didn't say that was a LIKELY scenario. Even the most likely scenario, a home invasion, is pretty unlikely. But it's likely enough that we pay a few thousand dollars a year (taxes) to have someone (police) drive around our neighborhood with the same weapon.
"You wouldn't need a gun if less bad guys owned one."
Possibly true. If I moved to a country with little crime, (Canada, maybe?) I don't think I'd be making the same safety argument.
But pistol shooting is also a skill. It's an Olympic sport. And taxpayers spent a lot of money teaching me how to do it. (I'm an Army Officer) And it's a skill I'd like to retain. So even if I moved to Canada, I'd probably still want a firearm with which to practice.
What about paintball or hunting? You don't necessarily need an M16 to retain these skills. And your right to practice with these guns isn't more important than everybody's right to live in a safer society.
@ PeterNBiddle; I guess you missed the part where there's been a century of armed conflict here in Northern Ireland and that that (armed, as all NI police officers are) constable was personally targeted and assassinated by the same group who'd killed two soldiers two days before?
In Northern Ireland, we don't have "normal" gun crime (we don't even really have many "normal" crimes in general.) Please don't use us as a rhetorical weapon in gun control issues- we don't have a dog in that race. It got blown up in the 70s.
I do question the need for a 20-round magazine in a pistol available to civilians. Can't see a scenario where that would be appropriate.
And you could have it, Dave- there are more legally-held firearms per capita in Canada than in the US. It's not a huge problem because of the mind control devices they have up there, set on 'nice'.
"An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity."
And still you insist on making it as easy as possible to have access to weapons.
Anyway you sound like you're coming straight out of a cheap Hollywood action movie... seriously...
Uh, that'd be "fewer" bad guys: number noun, not mass noun. Bad guys are finite, not in infinite supply; they're distinguishable and countable, not a horde. Which is kind of a gun owner's point: it's the one hypothetical bad guy that's being prepared for, not a ravening onslaught of evil that has to be shot down, Left 4 Dead–style. Yeesh.
That said, xstek99, what are you talking about with stuff like this?
For real? I fully support gun ownership, but this hail-of-bullets fantasy is a bit much. Lots of gun owners have their guns turned against them, or just get gaffled down, trying this kind of thing. Guns do often work in home defense, but what they unambiguously always do is send a "kill me because I'm going to kill you" message: if your antagonist is similarly armed, you've just escalated a situation, perhaps beyond your power to manage. "Don't show someone a gun unless you plan to kill him with it, and possibly be killed in the attempt," is more pragmatic than the Founding Fathers' lovely old saws.
#6
well, i kinda remember the brady bill making a limit of 10 rounds on magazine and armor piercing, phosphourus bullets not for sale to public. But who needs armor piercing bullets? Ever seen what a shotgun slug will do to a vest? It knocks a fistsize chunk of the vest into it's wearer.
Even on video games it's harder to kill those with armor. Just aim for the head.
I thing what I'm saying is, if you wanna go on a killing spree, there's not much society can do to stop you. Timothy McVeigh didn't fire a single shot......
xstek99,
I've redacted the extensive copy-paste in your comments per our policy.
gun owner here. Skeet shooter. My neighbors were victims of home invasion. Afterwards they came to me for advice on what firearm to purchase. I can tell you I'm not going to let some a-hole tie me and my wife up with duct tape while he decides what to do with us. If somebody is in my house at 3 AM I'll give him about 30 seconds to exit.
Like the vast majority of gun owners we reserve the right to protect our homes and families. We aren't paranoid. I keep 50 gallons of water and emergency food in my home too. We live in earthquake country.
So my gun is like any other thing, spare batteries, emergency radio, weapon, candles, etc. I sleep better Knowing that I am prepared.
It's even less surprising when look at social inequalities in L.A. for example.
failix,
Gang activity is generally not economically motivated.
Well that is just downright normal...
"Uh, that'd be "fewer" bad guys"
Alright thanks, English isn't my native language.
"it's the one hypothetical bad guy that's being prepared for, not a ravening onslaught of evil that has to be shot down"
My point is that if fewer bad guys have a gun, the probability they encounter one with a gun is also lower.
Your daily lives seem to be like mini cold wars on a local and social scale. You know, like "we need a nuclear bomb because the other one could get us with his nuclear bomb". Just make it illegal already.
Crime rates aren't necessarily lower in Europe. You probably risk as much to get robbed in the streets of say, Barcelona, as in any other big American city, but at least you'll still be alive afterwards.
I said social.
It just seems like an extraneous detail put in by gun control advocates to make the weapon seem extra scary.
alternately, it's a good point and you're projecting.
"...what the hell is "responsible gun ownership and use" supposed to mean?!"
It means not shooting things you're not supposed to shoot. Period. All other uses of a gun, inlcuding simple possession, are part of our civil rights and not open to question or interpretation by the hoplophobes.
The shooter was in fact a member of the military.
Facts are occasionally inconvenient, are they not?
Thanks to all the reasonable posters on this site. You've made some good points. Grew up with guns and still own quite few. Practice regularly and when not in use the weapons are locked up. Have been in combat so I know I can keep a quasi level head ( you just don't know how you're going to act until it happens) in a crisis, but although I can legally carry I vary rarely do because the situation in my area of the country (UT) doesn't warrant the hassle. In 25 years of law enforcement I only drew 5 times and only 3 of the times was it really needed-I know you guys in other areas of the country face more serious threat so I'm not going to second guess your situation-however in a country with 300 million people these events are rare and rarely would a civilian be a situation where they could legally make a difference. Sad but true.
Great point. I'm going to use this one.
Apropos of perhaps, nothing, I had to laugh at the name of the gun store. "Guns Galore" sounds like a fine place to go iffen yer a fix'n ta kill sumpin!
Not to make a massive like-fest of this, but I don't recall the last time I have been online and read an response entire thread and honestly enjoyed every response.
Valid point after valid point- the real issue here is the event at the cor, and the entire discussion is not only relevant but poignant and impassioned.
Bravo, Xeni- mild moderation and timely response proves one thing; I'm not the only liberal with a reasonable appreciation for the useful nature of firearms as a self defense tool.
Maybe the drug he was on was 'God'? Just a guess. Let's keep religion out of the military from here on out.
"What about paintball or hunting? You don't necessarily need an M16 to retain these skills. And your right to practice with these guns isn't more important than everybody's right to live in a safer society."
Who said anything about an M16? I just need a firearm. Pretty sure I'm going to need one of those for hunting, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. Paintball is to shooting what Milton Bradley's "Operation" board game is to surgery.
And crazily, yes. In the United States, my right to own and operate a firearm is in fact more legally important than everybody's right to live in a safer society. (See DC vs. Heller) Obviously that constitutional choice has some serious drawbacks. It has its advantages as well, but at the end of the day, it's what America decided to do. We're kooky. We know it. We'll understand if it weirds you out and you don't want to visit. We won't take it personally.
Older comment, but I thought it was important.
"On the other hand, I still don't see how the use of a gun for self-defense can be responsible. The subject of a threat can't objectively evaluate the situation; the bad-guy may not have a gun, or even be a bad guy. In a state of shock and/or panic, the risk of making an irreversible mistake by pulling the trigger, is far greater with a gun than with pepper spray or a securely barricaded house. Is it responsible to take such a risk?"
You seem to assume that this situation can be avoided altogether. It can't. If you create a society in which civilians have no legal right to acquire firearms, someone will still be responsible for responding to criminals with lethal force when necessary. In most cases that person will be a police officer. You've simply outsourced this ethical dilemma to an employee. It hasn't gone away.
Yes, an employee who's trained and is payed to make such decisions. It works in Europe. Most of the time, the police doesn't even need to use their guns because a majority of criminals don't have access to guns. Most cases of gun use from the police are prepared operations against gangs and involve swat teams.
"And crazily, yes. In the United States, my right to own and operate a firearm is in fact more legally important than everybody's right to live in a safer society. (See DC vs. Heller) Obviously that constitutional choice has some serious drawbacks."
Honestly, I really appreciate the fact that you admit it's crazy.
If only more people admitted it. It shows me that the decision isn't based on what's best and makes more sense for America, but on what a text says. No matter what I say and how I argue, in the end of the day, it won't matter because of this blind devotion to a 222 year old constitution.
Tell that to Tony Martin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)
In Finland the police rarely fires at all when they confront violent criminals.
Relatively often there are these guys who go binge drinking and who have a massive legal weapon cache at home (the Finns have a lot of weapons per capita). Enter domestic violence, after which they begun to shoot the neighbors. Hardly ever no one actually gets hurt, but it's frightening anyway.
Usually the police deploys quite an arsenal to the scene, but in the end doesn't fire a single shot (the shooter passes out by himself), or when a shot is fired it comes from a sniper rifle or a handgun, and the subject is skillfully wounded and quickly apprehended alive.
The same restrain is applied when dealing with real criminals. Actually killing someone is the ultimate last resort, and I can't remember when such thing has even happened (I'm about little over 30 years old). Probably there are some operations, which have been failed because of wrong use of firearms.
I think one of the main reasons why things haven't got out of hands is that the authority doesn't lower itself to the level of criminals and begin a shooting competition, but logically act restrained and hold a higher moral standard.
The fiction is better than the fact. 9mm Beretta, indeed.
Ironically, military bases are gun free zones for everybody except for Military Police and these mass murderers. The violence may have ended much sooner or even been deterred altogether if other soldiers had been allowed to carry handguns. These mass shootings rarely occur outside gun free zones. Gun free zones are well intentioned but the evidence suggests they only make us less safe.
"anyone talking about the 5.7mm round as "powerful" needs to cut back on their daily hype intake."
It appears to have been powerful enough to kill several people. I'd say that's powerful enough.
"... f) has two modes "bullet" and "slow kitten launch w/ confetti."
I have to retype that: "slow kitten launch w/ confetti." I just had my moment of Zen. Thank you Enoch...
In this instance the debate over gun ownership is not relative
He could have accessed weapons legal or not on Ft Hood
The question needed to be addressed is how he came to this and how nobody
he worked with noticed this possibility
As far as the rest of the LEOs around the world are carrying weapons now
when before they didn't
Cops are too slow and too few.
I'm sorry you don't comprehend the wisdom of the Constitution of the United States of America.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
The choice to make self defense a personal responsibility and not look to the state for protection is a very individualistic and anti-socialist viewpoint, and I can understand that living in a European state (I'm assuming you do?) can shape your perspective when it comes to what you expect from your government. In America, we expect our government to do what we tell it to do instead of what the powers that be believe is right for us. And one of the ways we ensure that those in charge don't over step there authority is through the civil ownership of firearms.
So to simplify, the reasons to own a firearm are:
-Self defense
-Recreational shooting
-Protection of civil liberties
Well, to throw my two-penneth in: Hypothetically if this horrific situation occurred in public where there were a lot of civilians carrying (concealed or otherwise) weapons, say a shopping mall. Do you think that this would have gone this way:
a) The original shooter gets shot by an armed civilian after he got the first few shots off, thereby reducing the overall number of casualties.
OR
b) The original shooter gets a few shots off, cue other people scrabbling for their guns (and running to the scene if they are not in eyesight), shooting wildly at the first armed person they see, leading to a protracted and confused bloodbath. And THEN the cops turn up to find a group of injured and armed people taking shots at each other and THEY have to differentiate between the upstanding citizens exercising their constitutional rights and the crazed lone gunman.
You may argue that with proper training blah blah but I am pretty sure that in the real world, scenario B would be more likley. The idea that armed civilians can be effective first-responders and have the training and resources to deal with such a scenario without making it a whole lot worse is frankly an adolescent fantasy
Also, if you seriously believe that armed civilians can stop the government doing exactly what they want you are living in a fantasy-la-la-land. They have the freakin' army as well as the cops. Apart from technically being treason, can you name an armed civilian uprising, since the French revolution, that has ended well for the uprisee's?
Modern weaponry makes suppression of armed civilian revolt too damn easy.
bingo no ccw on base
"Modern weaponry makes suppression of armed civilian revolt too damn easy."
The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan would beg to differ. Eight years of "modern weaponry" haven't been able to suppress the Taliban or the Iraqi militants.
"can you name an armed civilian uprising, since the French revolution, that has ended well for the uprisee's?"
I see what you did there.
Your arbitrary time constraint neatly avoids the American Revolution.
Errr..., we Brits always have this problem with gun-ownership and the US Constitution, mostly about the reasons and the wording. Apparently the wording is something like "...the right to bear arms against a common enemy." And then there's the idea of the People's Militia bearing arms, against a common enemy or its own government (if it gets a bit out-of-hand I suppose).
Just trying to get my head around this. Was this written at a time when you were likely to be invaded by the french or the brits? In which case, yeah. But you won. Swords and ploughshares people. So, I guess you see the common enemy as your neighbours. Love thy neighbour, then shoot them?
Don't get us wrong, many of us love/envy that you have a written constitution, freedom of speech and separation of church and state (kinda), we have none of those. But if the cost is gun ownership to protect our families, we'll keep our feudal/monarchic/pseudo-democracy thanks. Less people get killed.
Are you telling me that this guy purchased a pistol on the U.S. civilian market that holds 20 rounds????
Xeni, an amusing coincidence: you own the same gun that is standard US Army issue for officers. I wonder -- if Maj. Hasan had used his service weapon instead of the FN, would they be calling the Berretta a cop killer?