Letter to the editor (FN Five-Seven)

[Phantom Warrior]

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.

 

[bamawrx]

nice. Good going.

 

[Standing Wolf]

As always, the danger is the criminal, not the tool.

Very well said!

 

[P95Carry]

Good response - maybe - just maybe - lowered that dreaded ''hype factor''!

 

[BlackCat]

How weird. That same letter was in my local paper too! I missed the columns back on 3-11-05 unfortunately.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

MY letter was in your paper or someone else wrote in?

 

[JJNA]

Excellent, excellent letter. Very meaty and concise. Really well-done.

 

[BlackCat]

It must be safe to assume it was your letter.

 

[dolanp]

Nice write-up, though one small critique would be how you took two opposing views. On the one hand you say the 5-7 is nothing to worry about because the armor-piercing ammo is restricted (as a reason it should not be banned), then you go on to say that the armor-piercing ammo is a legitimate reason we need this gun.

 

[walking arsenal]

I should think some credit should be given to the editor of said "letter"

 

[Blackburn]

Funny, I read the same thing somewhere else online..

 

[boofus]

I think the broadheaded arrows used for hunting will shred Kevlar too. Their wounding power comes not only from kinetic energy like bullets but from a razor sharp point and edges that would actually cut the Kevlar fibers.

No one is out there calling crossbows and compound bows cop killers.

 

[walking arsenal]

Trust me guys, Phantom is the original writer. I know because i edited it. Plus some people have posted this letter online and you know how things spread once they hit the net.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Nice write-up, though one small critique would be how you took two opposing views. On the one hand you say the 5-7 is nothing to worry about because the armor-piercing ammo is restricted (as a reason it should not be banned), then you go on to say that the armor-piercing ammo is a legitimate reason we need this gun.

Yeah, I thought about that. I could give you about five different reasons for that. The major one is that I was restricted to 250 words and I was tired when I wrote this, so I wasn't quite on top of my form.

Also, initially I was trying to make the point that this isn't a super-mega-death-ray. It won't even penetrate Kevlar EXCEPT with this special bullet. Which is already banned, so you don't have to worry about it. I guess that was to deal with people where they were at. The "I don't think people should have armor-piercing bullets" crowd. Trying to sooth the initial hysteria. The comment with Mark Wilson was to bring a little light down into the cave and make people think that maybe there IS a reason for citizens having armor piercing ammo.

It wasn't perfect, but I was trying to calm people down and then broaden their horizons. It just didn't come through perfectly in 250 words.



If this has been published elsewhere I'd appreciate any links available. I'm curious how far my work has traveled.



walking arsenal,
The editor deserves his due. Unfortunately for him, I actually sent the letter BEFORE I e-mailed it to you, so the general public got the unedited, unimproved version. Pity them.

 

[gunsmith]

excellent!!!!

thanks,keep up the good work we need articulate people.
only one of my letters has ever been published,(i got help writing it)