We had a special guest at the range...

gumshoe4

May 4, 2003, 03:16 PM

I'm sorry, Justin-I guess I wasn't specific enough.

As a guy who has to wear Kevlar on occasion, I'm not real fond of the idea that there a round designed for use in a highly concealable handgun which will penetrate my body armor at close range. In fact, my understanding is that this particular round was developed by the Russians for the specific purpose of defeating body armor and I can't see any other useful application for it.

Rifle rounds generally are fired from rifles or big handguns which are not highly concealable.

Perhaps that distinction is not important to you, but it is to me. I am just as supportive of handgun ownership as anyone else here, but I think there is really no need to introduce such a cartridge here.

Not trying to start an argument-merely stating an alternate point of view, OK?

Bob

El Tejon

May 4, 2003, 04:21 PM

gum, there are other calibers that will defeat armour (dependent upon level) commonly worn that are commonly available and very popular (at least with gun dorks) now. Why the worry about the Soviet .22???:confused:

gumshoe4

May 4, 2003, 08:37 PM

El, the Soviet .22 is the subject of this column and Justin is the one who brought up the issue about my concern regarding that particular round after I stated merely that it was OK with me that the round is not available here.

You're right. There are other handgun rounds which will defeat body armor and I'm not real fond of those, either, but they are ALSO not readily available on the retail market (for which I am thankful) and they were not the subject of this column.

I will also point out that I am very interested in the gun itself and think it could be useful for some purposes, such as deep concealment.

Look folks, all I'm saying is that ammunition which will defeat body armor is a concern to law enforcement officers who otherwise support private ownership of firearms. Since this entire subject is presently nothing more than rhetorical at best, let me ask you-is it unreasonable to show some concern for the safety of those officers, or, in your view, if a law enforcement officer is in favor of banning such ammunition as a matter of self-preservation, is he by definition nothing more than yet another cop who does not support your 2nd Amendment rights? More importantly, in order to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, is it absolutely necessary to allow general distribution of such single-purpose ammunition? Do we really want officers to be killed if such ammunition was generally available to the criminal element of society in order to prove that we support the 2nd Amendment?

Can we not approach this issue from the standpoint of reasonableness? Do we not have enough effective personal defense ammunition on the market already that we need to have this single purpose ammo as well?

I am satisfied that it is possible to be pro-gun, pro-law enforcement and anti-Kevlar defeating ammo. I am all three. I see no need for such ammo here. I am glad it is not available and I don't want cops to die as a result of making such ammo generally available in order to prove how pro-2nd we are. If that makes me a sellout, so be it. I'm comfortable with my stance on the subject.

One more time-I recognize that this is a RHETORICAL discussion.
OK?

Bob

denfoote

May 4, 2003, 11:01 PM

Gumshoe,
I assume you are an LEO. While I can see your point about not wanting to get shot, the view you espouse is unconstitutional. Please re-read the second amendment with an eye toward the phrase "shall not be infringed" What part of that do you not understand????? :banghead:

Not to cause any trouble, just my personal opinion and that of many, if not all, pro gun legal scholars.

BulletinBoardToughGuy

May 4, 2003, 11:34 PM

Gum- LEOs aren't the only ones with body armor, bad guys have it too. Should the need arise to put down a "bulletproof thug", this would make it easier. Also, there are uses for this weapon besides poppin' cops: my wife wants a gun that kicks like a .22 and hits hard. I would say that this is that weapon meets both criteria. Besides, if someone wanted a LEO dead, a failure drill with the third round in his forehead negates his body armor. The type of person to carry an armor-piercing pistol for killing cops, so deprived of such a weapon, would simply do the same.

WonderNine

May 5, 2003, 12:14 AM

Gum- LEOs aren't the only ones with body armor, bad guys have it too. Should the need arise to put down a "bulletproof thug", this would make it easier.

Exactly...that's why I like the 7.62X25.

ANother thing, thugs have been known to work for governments....

Handy

May 5, 2003, 12:16 AM

Regardless of caliber, an interesting and well thought out design.

I'd buy one in .22 or .380, if offered.

TheMariner

May 5, 2003, 12:34 AM

I see Gum's point... If I had the leg up of armor, I sure wouldn't want to have peeps around with something to best me.

But on the other hand, there was teh LA bank robbery where two guys taped/strapped armor all over their bodies, making them near walking tanks. It took a couple LEOs renting some M16s from a local store to bring these guys down...

And if you are so worried Gum, get a depleted-uranium or titanium plate to put on underneath your kevlar. Unless you are willing to do that and sacrifice mobility, I suggest not standing around to see which bullets punch through body armor. Body armor is never a guarantee. Remember that.

Justin

May 5, 2003, 03:25 AM

Gumshoe, I know it wasn't your intention to turn this into a thread debating the relative legal merits of a gun we both think is kinda neat.
However, let us imagine for a moment that this little popgun isn't on the BATFE's list of all around nastiness and evil.
What would the result be?
A bunch of gun aficionados like me would buy one to add to their collection of Eastern Bloc pistols from the Cold War. Surplus ammo would be readily available through the web and Shotgun News. You more than likely wouldn't see them at gun stores, nor would you see the ammo. Criminals wouldn't buy them because they're too enamored of Lorcins and Rugers, and I seriously doubt that any of them have ever read Cruffler to dig up the ballistics stats on guns made by defunct totalitarian dictatorships.

Can we not approach this issue from the standpoint of reasonableness? There are two kinds of general statements that immediately raise my dander. Claiming that something is 'for the children' is number one. Claiming that something is 'reasonable' is number two. If such a supposition is indeed reasonable, then logic dictates that I'd have come to the same conclusion given the same basic set of facts. Nearly every time someone feels that they must point out how reasonable they are being I find that they are, in fact, being quite unreasonable. After all, Tom Diaz thinks it reasonable to ban handguns, so-called 'assault' rifles, and .50 bmg competition guns. Americans For Gun Safety think it's reasonable to shut down gunshows and deny anyone from selling a gun without letting the fed.gov stick their fingers into it. Maybe it's just my inner curmudgeon talking, but claims of 'reasonableness' don't float my balloon because they are not objective, they are an appeal to emotion.

El Tejon

May 5, 2003, 08:25 AM

gum, we are fortunate that rights are not defined by "need.":)

buzz_knox

May 5, 2003, 08:45 AM

in your view, if a law enforcement officer is in favor of banning such ammunition as a matter of self-preservation, is he by definition nothing more than yet another cop who does not support your 2nd Amendment rights?

Yup, just as every LEO who wants a database of all citizen DNA does not support the 4th Amendment. And they are out there.

If we start the dog and pony show of "I'm a cop who supports you. Won't you support me by banning those things which put me at danger?" then you can forget about the Constitution. You either support it in its entirety, or you don't.

Gordon Fink

May 5, 2003, 11:13 AM

Wow! I’m glad to hear that criminals have started to obey gun-control laws and ammunition regs, but I didn’t know there was such a big problem with law-abiding citizens shooting AP rounds at cops. :rolleyes:

~G. Fink

10good

May 5, 2003, 06:46 PM

Yes it's a good thing the BG's obey the gun laws.

We ought to ban all rifle and shotgun ammo since they can tear up vests good.

Wait, we should just ban all guns as the BGs would surely turn theirs in. Then all cities would be as safe as NYC and Washington DC.

WAIT! Why don't we just outlaw shooting cops? Oh, it's already illegal... and the BG's still do it? Damn...

BTW thanks to you and your buddies we don't have cheap steel core 7.62x39 ammo anymore ,because one company produced one stupid prototype of a pistol that could shoot it.

I'm sure cops everywhere are safer thanks to that...

You guys have to realize that any cop who believes that banning certain guns will make him safer is a closet gun control activist. He will start off saying he supports people having handguns and sporting rifles. But when you explain rifle ballistics to him, his logic will require him to admit that rifles should be banned. When he understands that the traditional 30/30 round will go through his vest easier than the banned full auto UZIs, he will decide that should be banned as well.

Ultimately if you believe banning one type of gun or ammo will make you safer, the logical conclusion is that banning all will make you completely safe.

This is the gun control party line. Guns kill people, not people. Ban guns and you have eliminated murder.

biere

May 5, 2003, 08:11 PM

I have to agree with those who feel we should be able to get the gun and ammo.

Limiting what I can use to protect myself so that police are more protected hurts me more than the police.

LiquidTension

May 6, 2003, 07:01 AM

Also forgotten in the thread is the fact that anyone with half a grain of sense will realize that a head shot defeats body armor every time. I know, let's ban head shots :rolleyes:

I understand not wanting to be shot through a vest, but you can't have it both ways. Sacrifices of personal safety must be made in order to maintain freedom. No, I'm not saying that armor piercing rounds are necessary for freedom. I AM saying that banning them just chips away freedom that much more. The antis rejoice any time the other side agrees with them.

j.wise

May 6, 2003, 10:08 AM

As I sit here at my computer, I look down at the CZ 52 next to me. I wonder...does the 7.62 Tok punch through body armor? I'm told it does, but to what degree I don't know. Then the thought of Saturday evening, when I confronted the man with a kitchen knife comes to mind...

I realize something... how few BGs have high-velocity Eastern bloc pistols compared with the number who own kitchen knives? You see, kitchen knives stab through kevlar vests quite easily, negating the need for fancy-shmancy armor-penetrating pistols.

Oh well...

Jesse H

May 6, 2003, 11:30 AM

Gumshoe,

So I understand you don't appreciate that caliber since it penetrates kevlar, which could very likely injure or kill you.

How do you feel about people that train to aim, shoot, and hit areas that aren't protected by a vest? Would you be more comfortable for you if people weren't allowed to train in such a way? Being shot thru kevlar, or shot at the unprotected head would yield the same results of ouchiness I'd imagine.

amprecon

May 8, 2003, 12:30 AM

BAN........I hate that d*mn word!

Bowlcut

May 8, 2003, 12:46 AM

the round may have rather dubious beginnings or history, and it may not serve a true peaceful role, id still like an oppertunity to own one of those. thats a down right sexy pistol. sexy in the cold war way, when things had to be sleak and get their job done well. id hate to be deined the oppertunity not to own one cause what it MIGHT do.

but man that is a pretty gun. the ammo is pretty too, really sleak. but she looks good, not just a work horse

gumshoe4

May 8, 2003, 03:15 PM

Sorry-didn't mean to start a gun ban discussion. Also sorry about the delay in response. I've been out of town most of the week.

I'm not against the gun. I'm also not worried about law-abiding folks shooting me, either with this round or any other. Making jokes about shooting a cop in the head instead of through his body armor is, in my opinion, not only in poor taste, but is also not the point. We're discussing ammunition which is designed to pierce body armor and which has no other discernible use. I'm discussing the possibility that if such ammo was legal, any criminal or crook could buy it or obtain it with virtually no regulation whatsoever. Why would a criminal use such ammo if he could go in and buy other types of ammo? Because he would know that its sole purpose is to defeat body armor. Who normally wears body armor these days and has regular contact with such criminals? LEOs.

The example of the body armor-clad bank robbers in North Hollywood is not applicable for several reasons, the primary one being that occasions in which the bad guys wear body armor are very uncommon generally and secondly, I seriously doubt that those crooks were ever within practical usable range of the pistol and ammunition described within this thread.

Now, I clearly understand that many of you disagree with me. Using your argument, there should be no reason that you should not be allowed to own any type of armament you want. Is there a line you would draw here? Would you allow law-abiding citizens to own handgrenades, for example? How about 20mm chain guns or SAWs? How about small tactical nuclear devices? Please understand-I'm drawing on the absurd here to point out that all of you have a line you draw SOMEWHERE which others might consider to be an infringement of their right to bear arms. Is it appropriate for you to draw your line for someone else? Is your line or limit based upon an emotional argument or upon logic?

For the record-I am progun (that's why I'm here), I belong to the NRA and have for many years, I support Florida-style CCW for citizens and nationwide carry for both citizens and cops. Those of you who have read any of my posts in the past or who know me from the Sacto shoots know this to be true. Others-sorry, you just have my word and you'll either accept that I am a 2nd Amendment supporter or I'm not.

I think it's interesting that right here on this site, we have a thread started by a person who is very concerned about whether law enforcement officers support the 2nd Amendment at the same time that we have this thread in which folks are putting forth the notion that the Soviet .22 ammo capable of and intended for defeating law enforcement body armor should be readily available to anyone. Talk about trying to have it both ways! Fortunately, most cops I know (at least the line guys and gals) are pro-gun, regardless of how y'all feel on this one particular issue, because they know the truth about armed personal defense.

And Denfoote-respectfully, I submit that your argument is the emotional one. My argument is based in logic. Yours apparently is something to the effect that if you want it, you ought to be able to have it and anybody who doesn't agree must be anti-2nd Amendment. It's not logically based.

I knew when Justin made his objection to my original comment that there would be disagreement and controversy about this subject and I knew what I had to say would go against the grain. It appears that for the moment, I'm the only LEO here who chooses to state an opinion about the Soviet .22 armor-defeating round. Maybe others don't want to join or maybe they think I'm full of crap, but MY bottom line is this-I don't think that the 2nd Amendment means that criminals get to possess armor-piercing ammo so they can kill cops by defeating their body armor. I don't think the original framers had that intent. Therefore, ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, I respectfully submit that the absolutists and I must agree to disagree.

Bob

Serpico

May 9, 2003, 08:24 PM

"Sacrifices of personal safety must be made in order to maintain freedom."

And with statements like that, you wonder why the anti's get bills passed....

Yes...there aren't enough guns to choose from so we need that kevlar killer...why? Because we can't have it...I have an idea...let's bring a boatload of them in and have one used by some thug on the street against a cop....then the anti's can hold it up on the news and scream cop killer....then congress can ban it...and while they are at, they can add a few more provisions to the bill and ban sutff we already own....good idea....:rolleyes:

gumshoe4

May 10, 2003, 02:44 PM

And now you understand how the anti-gunners have been able to insert a wedge between law-abiding gun owners and cops, a relationship which was, in the past, a very strong one.

Let's argue absurdity and insist on owning any damn thing we please and the consequences be damned. I wonder if Serpico and others would be so hell-bent-for-leather if they were explaining why they wanted to have Kevlar-piercing ammo readily available to the public to the widows and children of the police officers killed in the line of duty I saw yesterday at the California Peace Officer Memorial Ceremony in Sacramento. It's one thing to argue in anonimity here on the net. It's entirely another thing to make a logical argument to those folks.

I think I've said enough about this and I've taken way more than my fair share of heat for stating my opinion on this subject. I'm done discussing it.

Bob

Marko Kloos

May 10, 2003, 03:08 PM

It's one thing to argue in anonimity here on the net. It's entirely another thing to make a logical argument to those folks.

That's because reason gets the short end of the stick when emotionalism and pack mentality is brought into the picture. This is the entire strategy of the gun banners: circumvent logic and reason by appealing to pure emotionalism. It's a good tactic when facts and reason are not on your side.

Those police officers killed in the line of duty were killed by people who do not obey the law by definition. Any yutz can shoot through any kind of body armor with a $80 milsurp Mauser, or simply stab through it with an easily-concealed kitchen knife, but somehow the streets are safer because we banned "armor-piercing" handgun bullets...and thus caved in to the reasoning that anything that could kill a cop "easier" should be banned. Don't you see that the other end of that logic is to ban guns altogether? You think that the private ownership of handguns is reasonable, as long as you can't shoot AP ammo from them. Sarah Brady, and a whole bunch of other folks who have greater influence on the legislature than you do, think that the private ownership of handguns is altogether unreasonable.

Now I pose a different question: if the Second Amendment is ultimately intended as a "failsafe" device on the Constitution, so that the citizenry can fight a tyrannical government if needed...how can you advocate that the kind of weapons needed to fight such a tyrannical government and its agents (body armor and all) should be off-limits to civilians? Do you believe that your fellow gun owners will turn into instant cop-killers as soon as they get their hands on one of those silly PSMs and a box of AP ammo?

Personally, I favor a "goose and gander" amendment to the Constitution: no government entity may use weapons which are off-limits to the average citizen.

George Hill

May 10, 2003, 04:05 PM

I think everyone has expressed both sides of the "Because I don't like this perticular gun, it should be banned" debate.

So let's just drop that stuff right now - and return the thread to it's original purpose.
A rare and very interesting gun. It's small, it's potent, and it's so ugly it's cool.

I like it. Reminds me of a compact CZ-52.
I like it a lot.
I'd love to have one. But where does one get the ammunition for it?
Did I mention that I really like it alot?

The fact that it can buzz through a vest is only icing on the cake. The fact that this little gun gives pause to any would be jackbooted thug is so much bonus. To give a JBT the idea that he is not invincible, nor the Ultimate Power In The Universe is a good thing. The Government needs to know that it is IN CHECK by THE PEOPLE. The way the Bill of Rights intended.

Cool freaking little pistol... I'm going to have to buy me one of these. :evil:

Serpico

May 10, 2003, 04:35 PM

Gumshoe...I think you need to reread my post....I am not for importing armor piercing guns and ammo....I think you missed the sarcasm...;)

George Hill

May 10, 2003, 11:14 PM

A super cool little compact auto that hits like a nail gun...
The price is what, around 200?

Gimmie 2 of those and 2 CZ-52's. With plenty of magazines for them all around.

gumshoe4

May 10, 2003, 11:42 PM

OK, I guess I'm not done.

No, Lendsringer, respectfully, it's because neither you nor anyone else would be able to stand in front of those folks and make an argument that body-armor piercing ammunition should be available to the general public knowing that criminals could obtain such ammo with no regulation whatsoever and pose a grave danger to officers. I won't allow you to use the old "emotional argument" saw I've seen so many times herein, because I know you are very knowledgeable about guns and ammo generally and because I know that you are fully aware of the single use of this ammo and that it has no other purpose.

In one sense, you are correct-there is a paucity of data involving the use of this ammunition against law enforcement officers, because it is not readily available or legal in this country. That is perfectly acceptable to me. I think it's more important to have live cops with intact body armor than dead ones supplying data.

Contrary to your assertion, I do understand the basic tenet of gun bans by incrementalism. I live in California, Lendsringer, where incrementalism occurs every day in the Legislature and I am directly affected because I cannot buy handguns here which you and others can buy in most other parts of the country. I have a very clear understanding of incrementalism in handgun banning, I am directly affected by it and I am opposed to it and have worked politically to prevent it here by contacting legislators regarding bills to which I am opposed and by voting, IN EVERY ELECTION, for pro-gun candidates.

Do you have any understanding, other than a rhetorical one, of why I am opposed to such ammunition? I don't think that banning this ammunition constitutes movement towards incremental gun bans, but I do think that by keeping it unavailable, officers, including me personally, are safer. I reiterate that the 2nd Amendment does NOT mean that body-armor defeating ammunition should be available to criminals so they can use it to kill cops.

Incidentally, I happen to agree with you on your "Goose and Gander" theory. I am not comfortable with the idea that cops have access to 15-round mags while law-abiding citizens do not or that they can carry concealed while law-abiding citizens cannot. I don't view an armed law-abiding population as my problem-my problem is the criminal element.

May I suggest that you go back and read my other posts? My concern is NOT that law-abiding citizens will turn into cop killers if they get the Soviet .22 round (although George leads me to believe that, at least in his case, it could happen). Listen carefully: I will AGAIN state that my concern is that if such ammunition was generally available to the public, then anyone, including criminals, could buy it essentially without regulation. I DON'T WANT CRIMINALS TO HAVE THIS AMMUNITION. Clear enough? I'm not saying you or anyone else here is a criminal. I'm also not being ambiguous, so kindly don't put words in my mouth.

George, I sense that you are not confortable with the idea that law enforcement officers might be safer in our body armor if the Soviet .22 was not available to the public. Sorry, I'm a little confused...do you think all cops are JBTs and that we all were responsible for Waco? If that's what you think, you're very wrong, my friend, and I am a little appalled that you think we are expendable-or did I miss some more sarcasm?

OK-anything else? I'm getting ready to go out of town again to do some more crime-fighting. Anyone else want to express some more jack-booted thug, anti-cop sentiment before I leave as a going away present, or are we ready to move on?

I know-don't go away mad, just go away.....beat you to it.

Triad

May 11, 2003, 12:25 AM

I know that you are fully aware of the single use of this ammo and that it has no other purpose.
Really? I think it would make a fine round for hunting small game and target shooting, as well as general plinking.

Tamara

May 11, 2003, 12:47 AM

...because neither you nor anyone else would be able to stand in front of those folks and make an argument that body-armor piercing ammunition should be available to the general public knowing that criminals could obtain such ammo with no regulation whatsoever and pose a grave danger to officers.

Yes, I would, because it already is. 7.62 Tok, available cheap by the case and chambered in in flat, concealable pistols, will burn right through most soft vests. Let's not forget pretty much every rifle caliber in the world will, too.

I would also have no problem standing in front of widows and orphans of drunk drivers and telling them that cars and alcohol should not be banned. Et cetera, et al.

Right is right and wrong is wrong and no amount of black crepe can change it.

Using your argument, there should be no reason that you should not be allowed to own any type of armament you want. Is there a line you would draw here? Would you allow law-abiding citizens to own handgrenades, for example? How about 20mm chain guns or SAWs? How about small tactical nuclear devices? Please understand-I'm drawing on the absurd

Check, check, check and check. What's absurd?

U.S. v. Miller says I have the right to a SAW; and as far as cannons go, Congress has the power to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Who were they supposed to issue them to?

I live in California...

Which is sad, because it means you already tolerate as normal laws that I couldn't stand for. Of course, I tolerate gun laws that would have made my great-grandparents revolt. I guess the water's not hot enough for either of us to jump out of the pot yet, huh? :(

12-34hom

May 11, 2003, 11:37 AM

Gumshoe4, save your breath.....

12-34hom.

Intune

May 11, 2003, 12:24 PM

12
Good advice. But for the wrong reason.

Gumshoe4:
Your “…chain-gun, SAW…” remark being viewed as “drawing on the absurd” says it all for me. Give them small arms so they feel like they can defend themselves but nothing large enough where they could become a danger to US.

Let’s try this on for size, shall we? Criminals begin using body armor across the country. Please tell us what type of round LEO’s would be DEMANDING for use in their weapons. FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY sure looks purty, eh?

Also, where are all these police officer shootings taking place? Has the criminal element put the muzzle on CNN and Fox News? They used to cover those stories but…
:rolleyes:

12-34hom

May 11, 2003, 03:01 PM

I beg to differ, my advice to Gumshoe4 was for all the right reasons.

You're either for or against us rational is pure B.S.

Change is the essence of life, remain static and die.

12-34hom.

rauchman

May 12, 2003, 03:40 PM

Wow, a rather heated debate. While I can understand Gumshoe4's concerns of criminals having armor piercing ammo, the reality is that right now the criminals would be the ones who would have easier access to it than a law abiding citizen would. That scares me. How is that just about all of the gun laws revolve around possible criminal intent? Don't give them more than 10 rounds of ammo in their mags..... a law abiding citizen doesn't have a need for that. How is it that there are laws in effect banning full auto weapons, yet criminals have much easier access to them than law abiding citizens? I will elect to decide what it is I need, thank you very much. I don't need big brother to decide that for me. Criminals always have easier access to the banned stuff. All you need are the right connections. Armor piercing ammo, full auto. They can totally ban guns in America, but the bottom line is that the only people who are truly effected by that are the law abiding citizens. The criminals will take the chance of having "insert banned commodity here" brought into the country if it's going to sell and make money, ie: drugs, weapons, etc. Now, why is it the average law abiding always gets screwed? It's always because of protecting "the children", law enforcement, etc. What about the average Joe? How are we, the general public protected from the people that are always on a quest to take away things from us. I'm sorry, but if you are law enforcement I have great respect for you, but just like the military, it is a job you volunteer for. Nobody twisted your arm to take that job. You take that job with the understanding, you are going into harms way. It is an honorable position, absolutey. However, just because folks have elected to take that type of job does not mean that the average citizen should be denied access to things that are supposed to be guarenteed in the ole Constitution.

Let the flames begin......

braindead0

May 12, 2003, 04:03 PM

Allowing criminals to control the people is no better than slavery. Besides, I'm sure most of the people here could (in a pinch) improvise AP ammunition using HP bullets and hardened steel rods.

So what's the point of banning this cartridge anyway? It would just be a way to take on 50 riders, get some pork, ban a few other things...etc..etc....

I have several friends who are LEO's in California, and not one would support banning any firearms... cause they're sick of the CA bans already.

Penforhire

May 12, 2003, 07:36 PM

Gumshoe, the fair question you asked is where to draw the line. I think I have a relatively simple dividing line. I should be allowed to own and use any destructive device whose effects can be aimed and contained so as to not endanger others when used "according to instructions."

This rules out things like landmines, which are are not aimed and whose effects are difficult, if not impossible to contain.

However, this allows for any caliber of non-explosive projectile, at any velocity that can be stopped by an intended barrier (backstop), at any rate of fire that a person can control (handheld M60's are not considered controllable, Rambo not withstanding).

I support my law enforcement officers as much as possible. But infringing on my 2nd amendment rights is not a grey area to me. Ban ANYTHING and only criminals will have them.

Serpico

May 12, 2003, 07:43 PM

Criminals, criminals, criminals...big yawn....I'm not as worried about criminals having these types of things as much as the mentally ill...which the bulk of your schoolyard/post office shooter types are....

"I should be allowed to own and use any destructive device whose effects can be aimed and contained so as to not endanger others when used "according to instructions."

come now..how many men read instructions?

BHP9

May 12, 2003, 08:33 PM

Look folks, all I'm saying is that ammunition which will defeat body armor is a concern to law enforcement officers who otherwise support private ownership of firearms. Since this entire subject is presently nothing more than rhetorical at best, let me ask you-is it unreasonable to show some concern for the safety of those officers, or, in your view, if a law enforcement officer is in favor of banning such ammunition as a matter of self-preservation, is he by definition nothing more than yet another cop who does not support your 2nd Amendment rights? More importantly, in order to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, is it absolutely necessary to allow general distribution of such single-purpose ammunition? Do we really want officers to be killed if such ammunition was generally available to the criminal element of society in order to prove that we support the 2nd Amendment?

I both agree and disagree with you.

On the one hand outlawing something will temporarily keep it out of the hands of the average knuckle head crook but if the need or desire becomes great enough this type of weapon and ammo will simply be smuggled in and sold on the street. Its done very day with other weapons all over the world and the more strict the laws become the more prevelant the illegal weapons flow becomes.

Ammo made in other parts of the world that penetrates bullet proof vests in all calibers is also availble to crooks that really want it.

And of course if one has even a small machine shop and is a crook anything can be duplicated from weapons to ammo and sold illegally, so the lets ban it and make the world safe for the police is great for keeping weapons and ammo out of the hands of law-abiding citizens but doesn't even slow down the determined crook. Since he has the money he can get it.

The real reason it is banned is not because the Government is affraid of crooks, it is because the Government is afraid of the common people. Crooks don't usually threaten the power of the Government they usually play ball with it. It is the people that worry the Government most and this is what the gun and ammo bans are aimed squarely at. To control absolutely is to control the ownership of guns and ammo and this is the real agenda of anyone in any country that is in power. It is by nature only human nature to do so.

TreeSquid

May 12, 2003, 08:51 PM

I agree with him on all points. I believe that the healthiest thing we can have in law enforcement is a nice, happy "police vs. the civilians" mentality. After all, the police are here to keep those pesky civvies in line, not to serve and protect them, or some such rubbish! Normal people are not to be trusted with anything that could harm the police, because the police and those ordering the police around always make the right decisions and can always be trusted. Yes sir, infallible they are, so impervious to civilian weapons they should be.

On a non-fascist note, I think that anything the cops can have, I should be able to have. I'm not a criminal, I don't make a habit of shooting cops, so I don't think I should be treated like a liability, like someone who has the right to defend himself only against people who are poorly equipped.

As for "concern for officers", what about concern for citizens? I'm sorry, but my freedom far outweighs your safety when you CHOOSE a profession that you are fully aware may get you shot at. I'm really glad that gumshoe puts his own safety before that of law abiding citizens.

Keep on ruling with an iron fist! That's what makes America great!

tetchaje1

May 12, 2003, 08:54 PM

COOL GUN!!! :evil: I want one, but I wouldn't have the slightest idea of where to get ammunition for it.

Gumshoe,
I will not go into details here on the internet, but there are several other commonly available brands of pistol ammunition on the market -- other than the well-known 7.62x25 -- that will zing through a ballistic vest. I have seen some of these brands discounted on gunshop shelves in recent weeks as the store owners are trying to move them.

The bottom line is that I would be willing to bet that MOST criminals aren't even aware of Cold War Commie specials, as they seem to fancy Smith revolvers, Glocks, Rugers, and, of course, the cheapies like the Jennings and Brycos. I HIGHLY DOUBT that this caliber would ever be used in a police officer related shooting because of that very fact.

Besides, I am with everybody else here that it isn't the gubmint's business regulating what I can and can't have because of "possible misuse". Let us please ban automobiles and steak knifes if that is the case... :rolleyes:

R127

May 12, 2003, 09:16 PM

Why does it not suprise me that the Praetorian Guard is in favor of banning yet another item? You'd figure with the impotence they've displayed throughout the "war on drugs!" they'd realize that small items are easily smuggled and readily available to anyone who wants them.

Pain

May 13, 2003, 12:59 PM

Let me Just add a little food for thought here. We cannot keep Heroin, Crack, Ice, Meth, Pot, etc..... From The BG's hands whats to say that we could keep these or other type of AP rnds out of their hands. Banning these does nothing for the BG's that really want to obtain them and have the money or means to do so. The same people that smuggle other contraband into this country could just add something like this to their order and then the BGs have it anyway! Just my .02 cents

Serpico

May 13, 2003, 01:15 PM

I don't think you can compare drugs, which has a market, to armor piercing rounds...criminal are not that gun savvy as to try and find a special round..they shoot what they get....if that gun and it's ammo found it's way here any BGs who bought or stole one would probably do so without even knowing it can pierce armor...armor piercing rounds for most regular calibers have already been banned and do not know of any bad guys aquiring them on the black market like crack cocaine..

Schuey2002

May 13, 2003, 01:20 PM

Cool gun, Gunhead.. I wonder if I'll ever get to actually wrap my fingers around one.:banghead:

[Well, since I can neither PM or email you.. What would it take to get you to drag your H&K P2000 review (w/ pics) over onto this site? I'm sure that a few (non-HKPRO) members over here would enjoy seeing it..] ;)

Pain

May 13, 2003, 04:25 PM

It's not the everyday Crackheads that have nothing to lose are you have to worry about. Most of them would sell the gun for more crack before they could learn to rack the slide back. It is the Smugglers and the high profile drug dealers (you LEOs know most of them on your beats) that are looking at life prison sentences if they get popped again, that do have the knowledge and connections to acquire ammo of this type and use it. These guys are the ones that are willing to do anything to avoid going to Jail and that means shooting a cop if they have to. It is foolish to think that there is'nt quite a few guys in your town or my town that are'nt driving around now with a magazine full of AP rnds. Does an ammo ban keep them from getting it ??? Nope....... Those are the guys that im talking about .Again Just my .02

R127

May 14, 2003, 06:46 AM

It's not spoken of but well understood by many in the appropriate circles that it is no big deal to find an underground gunsmith ready, willing and able to convert your semi auto whatever into full auto firepower. Explosives are available, as are fragmentation grenades. Armor piercing and incendiary ammo can be had on the grey and black market. There's a guy who shows up at a private range not far from me who shoots Black Talons like they're going out of style.

This stuff has been and always will be available to those who really want it. You could ban all ammo tomorrow and I'd be rolling my own with homemade powder and reloaded primers by next evening... but that's just because I'm too frugal and wary to simply purchase the genuine article from underground sources. The cat's out of the bag, no ban is going to change that. It's just a matter of who wants it, and why.

coop57

May 14, 2003, 09:54 AM

Gumshoe,
Your position would imply that the Constitution/Bill of Rights is an living document. It is not. If you want to change the Constitution/Bill of Rights then there are legal methods to do so. It is not an easy process to change the Constitution/Bill of rights, and this is a good thing. Until then the people retain the right to pocess weapons which will enable them to defeat their government if it become necessary.

Gewehr98

May 14, 2003, 05:09 PM

That those of us who reload for our 7.62x25 CZ-52 pistols also load .223 sabot rounds. :what:

And those of us who buy CZ-52 pistols didn't buy them for the purpose of shooting law enforcement personnel.

R127, you can't use the Black Talon ammunition as an example. It was never banned, that's a common misconception. Winchester voluntarily stopped marketing it, after the late Senator Moynahan made a big issue about the talons "buzz-sawing" their way through their target. Never mind that the bullet had to travel 16 inches forward to get one complete rotation, if we use the common .40 S&W round.

Wonder what parent cartridge that little Russian .22 zinger sprang from, maybe ammo is only a forming die and case trimming away... ;)

(Anybody remember the ballyhoo about the .224BOZ?)

gumshoe4

May 15, 2003, 07:40 PM

Sorry, been out of town again.

Well, I'm glad we had this discussion. You guys have definitely changed my outlook so that I now understand the rules. Here they are:

1. Cops are fascists/Praetorian Guards whose sole purpose is to keep the "civilians in line". They serve no other purpose and are all alike.

2. I volunteered to be a law enforcement officer.

3. AP ammo of various stripes can be made/purchased/obtained elsewhere now.

4. Due to #1-#3 above, I am considered by you to be expendable and therefore should have no particular concern for my personal safety despite the uniqueness of my job which puts me in harm's way on a regular basis. I am here solely to take a bullet for you.

5. The Constitution says that anyone can have anything they want, so there are no limits (I'm still a little confused about this one, Penforhire, because I saw that you were actually drawing a line about what should and should not be available-I wonder if anyone else here agrees with you?).

You've made your points very clearly and I have learned that I am an arrogant elitist. I'm glad we cleared that up. I feel better now. Thanks, guys. I love serving a grateful public, but a simple "Thank you" would have been sufficient.

Bob

mrming

May 15, 2003, 11:42 PM

despite my better judgement, I'm going to attempt a response.

Most people in this country, Don't Like Cops.

:eek:

Most people in this country, don't like or want most of our laws.

:eek:

Most people in this country, don't like our tax levels.

:eek:

Most people in this country, don't live in middle-class suburbs.

My point? Many people, if not most in this country disagree with some of 'our' laws to the point of ignoring them. Its the job of the police to attempt to enforce them. That they are chronicly underfunded, overworked, and seperated out from a large part of society by the nature of their work doesn't help any. Add (pick your percentage) PD's resorting to drug busts/meter maids/0 tolerance speed traps to raise funding, and you get our present situation.

What most people see of police, is someone pulling them over yet-again out of a crowded road while they are doing no more than the rest of traffic.. with the only obvious difference being they drive something that looks sporty.

(A few) People who can think beyond their noses appreciate not having to sleep in watches and post a nightly armed guard at their residence. For that, thank you sir.

For being societies 'tech help desk' regarding laws/regulations that do not significantly enhance public safety; nor can be removed due to a small minority passing/maintaining the penal code.. and enforcing all that which 'only felons and morally corrupt would want legal', I am truely sorry.

But, police, by definition, are the point of interface between society and legislation. And the less in-sync legislation is with the needs of the society, the worse things will be.

However. I see no effort by the highway safety office to eliminate all vechiles with more than 200 HP because.. the only thing they could possibly be good for is breaking the speed limit and attempting to evade LEO's. To be blunt. Its reasonable for you to defend yourself. Its reasonable for you to seek out means to better protect yourself.

It is not reasonable to expect any part of society to form itself to the safety needs of your chosen career. Thats what the ATF is doing. Whats next? Manditory blood screenings and tattos displaying your health records so paramedics are 'safe' from accidental infection ? All buildings required to post hazmat/flammibility notices with monthly compliance inspections to keep fire-fighters from undue risk ? I don't pretend to have answers. But where is the line? And if your implying it stops at your safety in your career.. why?

kbellis3

May 16, 2003, 02:41 AM

Let us get one thing straight Bob, most people here appreciate LEO duing the risky job of protecting us from the street thugs and other crooks. However, we don't appreciate LEO blindly enforcing immoral laws that by their nature limit personal freedom and endager the rights of the citizens. We don't appreciate you advocating for more laws that limit our right of self defense in a dangerous world, especially since you are not under the same limits nor are forced to arm yourself with firearms that purchased from your own saving, if non-Leos are allowed to carry a gun at all in your state/municipality.

Now consider our point of view when we hear you state you are glad that this new firearm is only going to be sold to cop or soldiers, what we infer from these comments is that you are glad that we peons are not going to be allowed to use or own this firearm because it might endager your life.

When you are in trouble your fellow LEOs will rush to your aid with every weapon in the PD arsenal and every cop on the job in you district. When we are in trouble we are alone, armed with whatever we can acuire from our own funds, equiped with only the training that we can afford from our own limited income.

You on the otherhand have the benefit of department training and the PD weapons buying power to help you acuire firearms for what in some cases is a quarter of what we "Civilians" have to pay for the same firearm, that is if the pols in your state dain allow us to own firearms or handguns at all. :mad:

You also don't have to pay what can be several hundred dollars or more to try and obtain a CCW, you have the benefit of carry on your badge. We have to pray that we live in states where CCW's are legal and that the pols will not strip uf of the "priveledge of CCWs".:barf:

So when we hear you say that some firearms and ammo should be restricted from non-LEO or military hands we get just a little ticked off at you arrogance.:cuss:

Kyle