Attempt to ban five-seven

I only know the gun from Counterstrike Source, but think of it this way. Imagine you are a cop and the average person you face carries a gun that can shoot through your vest and kill you. Would you want that? Or let some collector have his precious gun? You have to think of the other side..

Right but since when has banning things stopped criminals from aquiring them. Making things against the law just denies them from law-abiding citizens...criminals will have them anyway...

I'm not againt banning guns; we even have a gun (It's a big thing in Southern California to have one). It just didn't seem like you saw it from the other side. Maybe they should just ban certain types of ammunition or hollow point bullets. Finally, I don't see the revelance with golf clubs. I don't see the average criminal holding up a liquor store with a golf club..

Edited by Sammy

well my dads a cop so i should be on the side of banning it but i know for a fact that it is MUCH harder to go through the bullet proof vests than ppl think...its got a couple of steel plates in there and the vest itself is friggin thick so good luck penetrating that.  hes been shot at but never hit but his buddy was shot with a .223 (same bullet used in an m-16) and the vest stopped it.  there are lots of guns that are powerful enough to break through the vest and im not really sure if the 5.7 mm is one of the ones to be really worried about esspecially when how many ppl that u know of own these guns?  id be more worried about being shot with a high powered rifle instead.

Sammy wrote: I only know the gun from Counterstrike Source, but think of it this way. Imagine you are a cop and the average person you face carries a gun that can shoot through your vest and kill you. Would you want that? Or let some collector have his precious gun? You have to think of the other side..

The whole argument collapses when you mention the Average Person. Criminals aren't average people. By definition they are people who break laws. Gun controll laws only prevent law abiding peopel from owning them.

As for firearms that can penetrate vests, well golly. Anyone who has a decent deer rifle owns a firearm that can penetrate normal cop issue soft body armour. Infact most cop vests are only Level II + wich aren't even rated for 9mm sub guin rounds, and a .223 will smoke through it with no worry.

There is a pelothra of firearms that are pistols that can penetrate a Level II vest.

Heck most normal calibers (.45ACP, 9x19mm and so on) can be loaded with AP ammunition. To penetrate armour you need something FAST and SMALL. There are a couple of rounds specifically designed like this with small frontal areas and very low weights to penetrate vests. KTW and the French THV are just 2 examples. I forget the manufacturer but there is a South African made Armour penetrating hollow point called the Eliminator, that used to be standard issue Cop ammunition.

All of these are muhc easier to get hold of than the expensive FN Five seveN pistol.

I personally don't put too much into this 5.7mm round. It is too small, and travels too slowly to be combat effective, IMHO. Its ONLY saving grace is that it can penetrate armour that will stop a normal .45ACP, .40S&w or 9x19mm round. However it has the same energy, size and weight as .22 WMR rounds. Very very dicey.

I personally don't think the Five seveN should be banned, and I am a cop who gets issued Level IIIA armour.

Level III + armour is the armour with metal or ceramic inserts called trauma plates. These increase the ballistic protection up to 7.62NATO rounds. You could be shooting my chest with an M14 and it won't kill me. The 5.7 will not penetrate this armour level.

As others have said, armour only protects your chest and maybe your back. Under your arms is open, and the armour making up the side pannels is generally of a lesser protection anyway. You legs with both Femoral arteries is open to being shot, as is your meck witht he Juggular and your spine.

Not to mention that your head is always open for getting shot.

By banning a specific type of firearm for the lack of a perceived need opens the door for all firearms to be banned for not fitting inside the requirement box of a group of people who don't even use them.

KBK

Well banning car theft is useless too. Think about it, the bad guys are going to steal cars regardless, so why cant I?

Roll Tide wrote: I could care less if they banned all firearms. All they do is kill people and animals.

That was ignorant. Firearms don't kill people, people do.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: 98God wrote: Roll Tide wrote: I could care less if they banned all firearms. All they do is kill people and animals. That was ignorant. Firearms don't kill people, people do. And firearms make it so much easier too.

Yeah that is true. It all depends on how it is used though. Banning all firearms would just piss a lot of people off. Not everyone who owns a gun kills people and animals.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: Well banning car theft is useless too. Think about it, the bad guys are going to steal cars regardless, so why cant I?

because then you would be a crimnal you big silly.

Edited by stick_boy_2002

Roll Tide wrote: 98God wrote: Roll Tide wrote: I could care less if they banned all firearms. All they do is kill people and animals. That was ignorant. Firearms don't kill people, people do. Firearms sure do help, huh? I just think that military and law enforcement are the only people that should have them, but we've already made a mistake by letting them become common in society.

So.  Lets say for instance you are on a camping trip and you get terrorized by a large animal.  You would want no sort of fire arm to protect yourself?  And fire arms can not be fired without an operator so....once again...people kill people, not weapons.  If you want to ban a gun because it can kill poeple, why not ban baseball bats or brass knuckles or knives?