Phantom Warrior
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,073
Well, what do you know. My letter to the local paper got published. They had published an editorial and a letter to the editor both decrying the new FN Five-Seven. Which we all know only exists to kill police officers. I sent off a letter that night laying out the facts and here it is. I'd appreciate your comments.
Letter: Danger is the criminal, not the kind of weapon used
Thursday, April 21, 2005
The two columns published March 11 regarding the FN Five-Seven pistol contained a number of exaggerations. Both painted body armor as the impenetrable shield carried by law enforcement officers and the Five-Seven as the one thing that can penetrate it. However, neither claim is completely true.
The FN Five-Seven fires a round called 5.7mmx28. The 5.7mm is nothing particularly special. It simply utilizes a teeny-tiny bullet and throws it really fast. Even then it can only penetrate body armor if a special steel-cored bullet is used, which is already restricted. The standard ammunition available to civilians behaves no differently than any other.
The type of body armor commonly used by law enforcement, Level II, is rated to stop common handgun rounds. However, that is all it will do. Some of the larger or higher velocity handgun rounds will penetrate a Level II vest. Any rifle will go through a Level II vest like butter. And a vest will do no good against a hit in the head or the leg, where there is no protection. The low-tech knife can even penetrate a vest that a bullet will not, because of its ability to “slip†between the layers of material.
Both columns want the Five-Seven outlawed because it can penetrate body armor. And how many people even own an FN Five-Seven? Why not just go ahead and ban it? If 5.7mm is outlawed, then everything else that penetrates body armor should logically be banned too. The .30-30 Winchester, used to hunt deer every year, throws a bullet five times heavier than a Five-Seven, and it throws it just as fast. If the government starts banning anything that can defeat body armor, all hunting rifles are going to be the on the list too.
The claim that there is “no legitimate reason for law-abiding citizens to be packing these armor-piercing pistols.†Please tell that to the family of Mark Wilson, the armed citizen who died while facing a gunman at a Texas courthouse who was wearing body armor. Mr. Wilson successfully scored hits on the criminal, but was unable to penetrate his vest. The criminal fired back, killing Mr. Wilson. Self-defense is a pretty legitimate reason.
As always, the danger is the criminal, not the tool. There is no good reason to ban the FN Five-Seven and a number of good reasons not to.