NationStates Jolt Archive

A Belgian superpistol has created a lot of commotion in the United States, The anti-weaponlobby and local politieunions plead to ban the FiveseveN from FN Herstal. They call the weapon "copkiller" because it can shoot through a bulletp roofvest from a hundred meters distance. Here in our nation the weapon is not for sale.

The FiveseveN of FN is the most modern pistol in the world. It is a weapon thats finds its origins in the military and it can be very deadly at large distances. Bulletproofvests are pointless. The pistol will penetrate 48 layers of kevlar, the strong material of which bulletproof vests are made. FN sells the seapon only to police and militaryservices, but developed a civil version for the 'gunnut' Americans with altered munition. But that pistol too can shoot a bulletproof vest to pieces, the antiweaponlobby says, who tested the weapon. Local policeunions and local corps' are pulling on the alarmbel. Especially because the FiveseveN found its way to the underworld. Policeunions are trying to ban the weapon through the political ways.
Congress will soon vote on a law to forbid the weapon "This pistol can kill officers from more than twohundred meters away" Elliot Engel, the congressmember who wants to see it banned from civil use.
"Our FiveseveN is only sold with trainingammunition in the US" Therefore, the pistol isnt any more dangerous than other weapons, those who are opposed to the weapon are only trying to create a chaos." Robert Sauvage said" Our pistol was checked by authorities and found conform to al requirements".

1)This weapon doesnt hit anyone at distances over 50-60 meters, and the 5.72mm round feels like a needle when getting hit, the main emphasis is to immobilize your (protected) opponent, not to kill him.
2)Is it correct that it costs 650$?
3)Should it be banned from use by civilians?
4)This article is, as you may have noticed, copied and translated. Therefore i apologize for gramatical faults that you have encountered.
5)Belgian guns rock

5)Belgian guns rock
Check our chocolate too. :)

I don't care if the Americans kill each other off. They want to have the right and they shall get it.

And since rarely any American knows, where Europe is, there is nothing to fear, that they will come over.

So let's ship more guns to them.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/waffen/violent-smiley-021.gif

Holy fecking craaaaaaaaaaaaap.

48 layers?

Wow.

Belgian waffles should be taken off of the streets. Won't someone please think of the children!

Belgian waffles should be taken off of the streets. Won't someone please think of the children!You will take my Belgian waffles away over my dead body.

To paraphrase Patrick Henry: Give me waffles, or give me death!

Really though, I don't think Americans would tremble for anything from Belgium (except The Smurfs). I don't think most Americans know where Belgium is. Ask an American what Flemish is, and im sure you'll get spit on.

Freedom and liberty, I own no guns personally I do not care for them but truthfully and I know it is a cliche but guns do not kill people people kill people. If a gun sits on a table for 100 years how many people does the gun kill? None. It should be legal to purchase. Know what is really funny I bet the weapon is going to be here anyways and the criminal is going to have one one way or another. Lets stop the blackmarket.

If an atom bomb lies on a table for 100 years how many people does it kill? None. It should be legal to purchase.

Good assassinating weapon. Ban it.

Plus it looks like only criminals would use such a weapon. Don't think normal everyday sane people would want to buy something like that.

@ Greedy Pig.

Ahem...

ZOMG U OUTLAW DIS ND ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE IT!!!!1111!!!!!1

*purges self*

Always wanted to do that.

Good assassinating weapon. Ban it.

Plus it looks like only criminals would use such a weapon. Don't think normal everyday sane people would want to buy something like that.

Everyday sane people don't want guns.

Everyday sane people don't want guns.

Are you saying the majority of the US is insane?

... Don't answer that. :p

Are you saying I'M insane?!

>_>
<_<

Who told you :eek:

1)This weapon doesnt hit anyone at distances over 50-60 meters, and the 5.72mm round feels like a needle when getting hit, the main emphasis is to immobilize your (protected) opponent, not to kill him.
2)Is it correct that it costs 650$?
3)Should it be banned from use by civilians?
4)This article is, as you may have noticed, copied and translated. Therefore i apologize for gramatical faults that you have encountered.
5)Belgian guns rock

2) Probably right but w/ the media hype it will probably cost more.
3)No
4) It read Fine
5) FN guns are excellent quality.


All this "cop-Killer" nonsense is fear-mongering by the Brady Campaign and thier ilk to further remove the rights of Law-Abiding Citizens in favor of criminals. The AP ammo designed for the sidearm is not imported to the US.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearmstech/fabriquen.htm

P90 of FN is also made for cops.

http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg13-e.htm

Well, I always believe that guns sold on the streets shouldn't be able to peirce through kevlar armour. Although it may be needle-like.

I don't care if the Americans kill each other off. They want to have the right and they shall get it.
I agree. Guns should entirely legal in America anywhere the local populace would like them to be. It's wrong to deny them that freedom, and it's also killing otherwise sensible Democrats in elections.

P90 of FN is also made for cops.

http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg13-e.htm

*drooliness*

The Stargate weapon.

Well, I always believe that guns sold on the streets shouldn't be able to peirce through kevlar armour. Although it may be needle-like.

The gun has nothing to do w/ it. It's the ammunition. The AP ammo isn't even being imported to the US.

Everyday sane people don't want guns.
That's not true. I and many of my friends own guns.

This gun is about useless. It's the equivalent of a souped up .22, right? How much stopping power can it have?

What need is there for this weapon in common hands? If it is as powerful as you say it would destroy any wildlife. Common criminals don't wear kevlar. If a robber or mugger or other small offence criminal wore body armour they'd stick out like a sore thumb. If you are that important that people will wear kevlar vests when attacking you then you have your own security force. Therefore the only people who want or need this gun are police/ military forces and people who want to fight these police/ military forces. If someone can make an argument for a sensible reason to own this gun please make it, but as I have stated there is no logical one to have it. Sure, some may say they arn't shipping the AP ammo for it, but once you have the gun you can have a gunsmith manufactor the ammo for it or it can be achieved through the black market. For those of you who saw this month's issue of national geographic and saw the pic of the man on main street selling Ak-47s and other automatic weapons, how hard can it be to get ammuntion on the balck market for these weapons??

What need is there for this weapon in common hands? If it is as powerful as you say it would destroy any wildlife. Common criminals don't wear kevlar. If a robber or mugger or other small offence criminal wore body armour they'd stick out like a sore thumb. If you are that important that people will wear kevlar vests when attacking you then you have your own security force. Therefore the only people who want or need this gun are police/ military forces and people who want to fight these police/ military forces. If someone can make an argument for a sensible reason to own this gun please make it, but as I have stated there is no logical one to have it. Sure, some may say they arn't shipping the AP ammo for it, but once you have the gun you can have a gunsmith manufactor the ammo for it or it can be achieved through the black market. For those of you who saw this month's issue of national geographic and saw the pic of the man on main street selling Ak-47s and other automatic weapons, how hard can it be to get ammuntion on the balck market for these weapons??
Most criminals don't make their own ammo or buy specialty ammo other than Hollowpoints. The average gangmember isn't even good at cleaning his gun, much less loading his own ammo.

@Seton, why do you think one of the first moves of dictatorial regimes is making sure the general population has no weapons....because with weapons the people are in control. It's also a good measure to defend your country if your invaded, because many americans had a gun they could win independence from the brits.

Besides, what's so wrong with owning a gun? Shooting it at a person is wrong but owning one isn't. As long as I don't limit the freedom of someone with it I should be free to decide to have a gun. It's also a good measure to defend myself.

Besides like forbidding guns will make it harder for a criminal to get one? It will make it harder for people trying to defend themselves to get one, but criminals will get one anyway.

Most criminals don't make their own ammo or buy specialty ammo other than Hollowpoints. The average gangmember isn't even good at cleaning his gun, much less loading his own ammo.

I understand that. I'm not talking about common gang members. I'm talking about smart drug cartels who basically have a private army and terrorists. Gang members will use whatever they have avalaible.

I understand that. I'm not talking about common gang members. I'm talking about smart drug cartels who basically have a private army and terrorists. Gang members will use whatever they have avalaible.
Not many of them in the USA. The smart criminals subcontract their street level crime and their muscle work to poor, ignorant criminals. In Columbia you will find private armies and terrorist drug networks, but not so much in the USA.

What need is there for this weapon in common hands? If it is as powerful as you say it would destroy any wildlife. Common criminals don't wear kevlar. If a robber or mugger or other small offence criminal wore body armour they'd stick out like a sore thumb. If you are that important that people will wear kevlar vests when attacking you then you have your own security force. Therefore the only people who want or need this gun are police/ military forces and people who want to fight these police/ military forces. If someone can make an argument for a sensible reason to own this gun please make it, but as I have stated there is no logical one to have it. Sure, some may say they arn't shipping the AP ammo for it, but once you have the gun you can have a gunsmith manufactor the ammo for it or it can be achieved through the black market. For those of you who saw this month's issue of national geographic and saw the pic of the man on main street selling Ak-47s and other automatic weapons, how hard can it be to get ammuntion on the balck market for these weapons??

So banning it would keep it off the black market?

This gun is about useless. It's the equivalent of a souped up .22, right? How much stopping power can it have?

Technically the 5.56 & 5.45 mm rounds are also glorified .22's.

Looking at the round, it seems more in tune to a .22 magnum designed like a rifle round.

Freedom and liberty, I own no guns personally I do not care for them but truthfully and I know it is a cliche but guns do not kill people people kill people. If a gun sits on a table for 100 years how many people does the gun kill? None. It should be legal to purchase. Know what is really funny I bet the weapon is going to be here anyways and the criminal is going to have one one way or another. Lets stop the blackmarket.

Wow! A totally sane post in a thread like this! Will wonders never cease! :D

I don't care if the Americans kill each other off. They want to have the right and they shall get it.

And since rarely any American knows, where Europe is, there is nothing to fear, that they will come over.

So let's ship more guns to them.

i know where europe is, but im not allowed to have guns... i might kill people. just knives and archaic, ineffective weapons, like swords and bows.... nothing dangerous, nothing at all.

anyone else hate police psychiatrists?

Did you know that blackpowder rifles are legal in the US? And that I, at 17, can buy one?
Did you know that a .50 calibur rifle slug leaves the barrel of a blackpowder weapon traveling FASTER than that of a regular weapon?
Sure, you only get one shot, but you do what the British did in Zulu (The one where they won), rotate!
Not that it would be effective even then, because the police would simply use a sniper to tag you in the forehead from a mile away with a small, but effective, 7.62mm round. I beleive most large PD's use PSG-1's now, damn good rifle.

As to the implication that most Americans dont know where Europe is...
http://www.hartionline.ro/lume/australia.gif
HA! Whos the fool NOW?

Freedom and liberty, I own no guns personally I do not care for them but truthfully and I know it is a cliche but guns do not kill people people kill people. If a gun sits on a table for 100 years how many people does the gun kill? None. It should be legal to purchase. Know what is really funny I bet the weapon is going to be here anyways and the criminal is going to have one one way or another. Lets stop the blackmarket.

Well we all know that won't work. Obviously since FN builds assault weapons intentionally designed to kill police ( it must be run by a bald guy petting a cat) the only way to keep these off the street is to ban law-abiding citizens from having them.

@Seton, why do you think one of the first moves of dictatorial regimes is making sure the general population has no weapons....because with weapons the people are in control. It's also a good measure to defend your country if your invaded, because many americans had a gun they could win independence from the brits.

Besides, what's so wrong with owning a gun? Shooting it at a person is wrong but owning one isn't. As long as I don't limit the freedom of someone with it I should be free to decide to have a gun. It's also a good measure to defend myself.

Besides like forbidding guns will make it harder for a criminal to get one? It will make it harder for people trying to defend themselves to get one, but criminals will get one anyway.

In most of Europe, guns are banned. Does that mkae them a dictatorship or simply looking out for the safety of the people? Of course in Europe when our government's do something we dont like, we protest about it or don't elect them, rather than go about threatening them with firearms.

Secondly, I really don't think America is going to be invaded any time soon and I am sure even if you were invaded that the American government has adequate means to equip all of citizens with guns anyway. Anyway civilians aren't meant to defend their country - thats what the armed forces and the militia are there for.

Most people will handle guns fine. However there is always the small minority that will abuse their liberty - the deranged, the psyopathic, the criminally inclined or just the plain malicious. And because its guns that are being abused, that means that human life is in danger.

So in the USA you have a choice: the liberty to own a gun or the liberty to live. Freedom to die is no freedom at all.

In most of Europe, guns are banned. Does that mkae them a dictatorship or simply looking out for the safety of the people? Of course in Europe when our government's do something we dont like, we protest about it or don't elect them, rather than go about threatening them with firearms.

Secondly, I really don't think America is going to be invaded any time soon and I am sure even if you were invaded that the American government has adequate means to equip all of citizens with guns anyway. Anyway civilians aren't meant to defend their country - thats what the armed forces and the militia are there for.

Most people will handle guns fine. However there is always the small minority that will abuse their liberty - the deranged, the psyopathic, the criminally inclined or just the plain malicious. And because its guns that are being abused, that means that human life is in danger.

So in the USA you have a choice: the liberty to own a gun or the liberty to live. Freedom to die is no freedom at all.


And Europe has never had a history of Gov'ts oppressing the people right?

So you want to punish the majority for the actions of a few?

So you believe if a person doesn't own a gun they won't die?

BTW, who do you think makes up a militia? It would be civilians.

And Europe has never had a history of Gov'ts oppressing the people right?

So you want to punish the majority for the actions of a few?

So you believe if a person doesn't own a gun they won't die?

BTW, who do you think makes up a militia? It would be civilians.

The crux of the argument for guns is always

IT IS OUR RIGHT TO OWN A GUN. TO TAKE IT AWAY IS TO INFRINGE ON OUR LIBERTY.

But you see that argument can be applied to;

IT IS OUR RIGHT TO INJECT OURSELVES WITHIN HEROIN. TO TAKE IT AWAY IS TO INFRINGE ON OUR LIBERTY

or

IT IS OUR RIGHT TO HAVE AN ABORTION. TO TAKE IT AWAY IS TO INFRINGE ON OUR LIBERTY

or

IT IS OUR RIGHT TO OWN PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES. TO TAKE IT AWAY IS TO INFRINGE ON OUR LIBERTY

or finally

IT IS OUR RIGHT TO KILL WHOEVER WE WANT. TO TAKE IT AWAY IS TO INFRINGE ON OUR LIBERTY.

The same principles are being applied, just to slightly different circumstances. the question that has to be asked is where does your liberty end and anothers begin?

*drags New British Glory away and lectures him on sweeping statements*

now that i think about it how does the cliche phrase: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." some how defend the right to own guns? i wasnt aware everyone in america wanted a gun just for show and it was going to stay in a glass case on the wall. people will kill people and guns are the easiest things to do it with. lets give everyone swords and see how much killin gets done

i know where europe is, but im not allowed to have guns... i might kill people. just knives and archaic, ineffective weapons, like swords and bows.... nothing dangerous, nothing at all.

anyone else hate police psychiatrists?
Um, if you've got psychiatric problems you shouldn't own a gun. That's just common sense.

*drags New British Glory away and lectures him on sweeping statements*

Actually I am revealing the folly of using the word 'liberty' to discuss the banning (or legalisation) of something. It is far better to use practicality as an argument.

Maybe, but owning something is different to stoving someone's head in with it.

I have a right to own a rock. But not to throw it at someone.

And Europe has never had a history of Gov'ts oppressing the people right?

So you want to punish the majority for the actions of a few?

So you believe if a person doesn't own a gun they won't die?

BTW, who do you think makes up a militia? It would be civilians.

Give over. Yes, naturally, Europe has a rather illustrious history of oppression. Everywhere does if you look back long, or short, enough. Just look at the US gun-crime rate. That's all. That's it. OK? And wtf is this recurrence of 'the militia'? Seriously? And if this paranoia is so overwhelming, if you're SO sure that your country is on the verge of being invaded, how about a little national service for all? Stockpile some guns, break glass in case of emergency.

now that i think about it how does the cliche phrase: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." some how defend the right to own guns? i wasnt aware everyone in america wanted a gun just for show and it was going to stay in a glass case on the wall. people will kill people and guns are the easiest things to do it with. lets give everyone swords and see how much killin gets done
What makes you think criminals won't get guns if you ban them? Cocaine is banned. Anyone who wants it can still buy it though.

The crux of the argument for guns is always

IT IS OUR RIGHT TO OWN A GUN. TO TAKE IT AWAY IS TO INFRINGE ON OUR LIBERTY.

But you see that argument can be applied to;

IT IS OUR RIGHT TO INJECT OURSELVES WITHIN HEROIN. TO TAKE IT AWAY IS TO INFRINGE ON OUR LIBERTY

or

IT IS OUR RIGHT TO HAVE AN ABORTION. TO TAKE IT AWAY IS TO INFRINGE ON OUR LIBERTY

or

IT IS OUR RIGHT TO OWN PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES. TO TAKE IT AWAY IS TO INFRINGE ON OUR LIBERTY

or finally

IT IS OUR RIGHT TO KILL WHOEVER WE WANT. TO TAKE IT AWAY IS TO INFRINGE ON OUR LIBERTY.

The same principles are being applied, just to slightly different circumstances. the question that has to be asked is where does your liberty end and anothers begin?

Nice slippery slope, do you fall down much?

Do you feel that depriving the majority of thier liberty supports the rights of the minority?

Are you against an armed citizenry?

Do you believe that only the rulers should have guns?

Maybe, but owning something is different to stoving someone's head in with it.

I have a right to own a rock. But not to throw it at someone.

Picking at hairs really. The liberty to use the object that you have the liberty to own is really implied by the fact you have the liberty to own it.

After all why would you own a gun? Just for the sake it? No, you own it in the presumption that one day it will be used. So therefore the liberty to own something really implies the liberty to use it.

Nice slippery slope, do you fall down much?

Do you feel that depriving the majority of thier liberty supports the rights of the minority?

Are you against an armed citizenry?

Do you believe that only the rulers should have guns?

1. When the 'liberty' of the majority conflicts with general common sense, safety, costs millions in policing and medical treatment and social harmony, then yes it should be bammed

2. An armed citzenry only creates disorder and makes it difficult for police officers to do their job. it also makes it diffuclt for rulers to govern.

3. In most cases yes. In a democratic society then certainly. It allows the rulers to maintain order and stability.

What makes you think criminals won't get guns if you ban them? Cocaine is banned. Anyone who wants it can still buy it though.
you can make cocaine and cocaine is a bit harder to stop the transport of

Actually I am revealing the folly of using the word 'liberty' to discuss the banning (or legalisation) of something. It is far better to use practicality as an argument.

Oh, you mean like how the UK crime rate has soared since the gun ban?
Like In the US the cities that have the most draconian gun laws have the highest crime rates?
Like how every state that has enacted CC and RTC laws have had an average of 10% drop in crime in less than a year?

Guns are created to kill people.

Yeah, it's a fact.

Guns are easy to make (relatively). So banning guns won't stop gun crime.

I may not approve of the US's policy on guns, I may vehementky argue against this policy being exported, but I can see why they have it.

A lotta people in their country are violent, and have access to guns. They want to be able to shoot back.

Oh, you mean like how the UK crime rate has soared since the gun ban?
Like In the US the cities that have the most draconian gun laws have the highest crime rates?
Like how every state that has enacted CC and RTC laws have had an average of 10% drop in crime in less than a year?

Provide some stastics and I might be inclined to listen to you. I do live in the UK and happen to know that we have far lower gun crime than you (proportion to population)

Oh, you mean like how the UK crime rate has soared since the gun ban?
Like In the US the cities that have the most draconian gun laws have the highest crime rates?
Like how every state that has enacted CC and RTC laws have had an average of 10% drop in crime in less than a year?

Ugh.

Interdependency of events. While it contributes, it is not solely responsible.

@Seton, why do you think one of the first moves of dictatorial regimes is making sure the general population has no weapons....because with weapons the people are in control. It's also a good measure to defend your country if your invaded, because many americans had a gun they could win independence from the brits.

Besides, what's so wrong with owning a gun? Shooting it at a person is wrong but owning one isn't. As long as I don't limit the freedom of someone with it I should be free to decide to have a gun. It's also a good measure to defend myself.

Besides like forbidding guns will make it harder for a criminal to get one? It will make it harder for people trying to defend themselves to get one, but criminals will get one anyway.

The population of Iraq was highly armed before the US aggression and that didn't stop Saddam from remaining in power.

Many democratic states have gun control and still remain democratic. That doesn't mean I want gun contol in the US though. The Americans may kill each other by all means IMO.

1. When the 'liberty' of the majority conflicts with general common sense, safety, costs millions in policing and medical treatment and social harmony, then yes it should be bammed

2. An armed citzenry only creates disorder and makes it difficult for police officers to do their job. it also makes it diffuclt for rulers to govern.

3. In most cases yes. In a democratic society then certainly. It allows the rulers to maintain order and stability.

1.Bammed? Social Harmony? Like the skyrocketing crime rate in England? Why don't you ask Annie Hendrick or Sally Skidmore about medical costs. They are in UK hospitals after being severely beaten by criminals w/ guns. What about their "liberty"? Why is their a movement in the UK to restore the right to self defense if "general common sense" has created "social harmony"?

2 & 3. Democratic societies aren't "ruled". Dictatorships also maintain order and stability. Mostly my removing people who think differently.

@Seton, why do you think one of the first moves of dictatorial regimes is making sure the general population has no weapons....because with weapons the people are in control.

Also in my country we trust our government and our system. We dont feel the need to keep our politicians threatened with physical violence. Mind you I don't blame Americans for distrusting your government considering your first ever government consisted of traitors, full of duplicity.

Provide some stastics and I might be inclined to listen to you. I do live in the UK and happen to know that we have far lower gun crime than you (proportion to population)

From your home office:

Since 1996, robbery has risen 45%, murders 54%

In the second quarter alone, Violent crime rose 11 %


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/470425.stm

http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/US_murder.html

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=7862&mode=print

Ugh.

Interdependency of events. While it contributes, it is not solely responsible.

Then what is responsible?

Erosion of civil liberties coupled with misapplications of socialism, leading to a decline in discipline, whilst at the same time falling standards of police service lead to less police for more people, all of which contributes to a rising crime rate.

And now, if you'll excuse me *turning purple*

Right, that's it.

*steam pouring out ears*

GUNS FOR EVERYONE! NO CRIME EVER AGAIN!

*pulls a man off his feet*

Do YOU have a gun?! YOU MADMAN! HERE, TAKE MINE! I'VE GOT 20 AT HOME!

*stumbles out of the thread looking to give AK-47s to all and sundry.*

From your home office:

Since 1996, robbery has risen 45%, murders 54%

In the second quarter alone, Violent crime rose 11 %


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/470425.stm

http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/US_murder.html

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=7862&mode=print
irrelevant to gun crimes which he said

From your home office:

Since 1996, robbery has risen 45%, murders 54%

In the second quarter alone, Violent crime rose 11 %


Robbery, murder and violent crime does not neccassarily mean gun crime or crimes that guns would have prevented.

Also I can probably find some other statistics that go exactly the other way to yours.

Alas crime is a very difficult thing to turn into statistic form. For example in the House of Commons a month ago, Tony Blair and Michael Howard (Opposition leader) were arguing about crime rates under when Michael Howard was Home Secretary back in the 1990s. Both were quoting crime rates from official sources that are officialy recognised - however they were completely different. Howard said crime had dropped by 20% unde rhis Home Secretaryship whereas Blair was arguing that crime had risen under Howard's time. Who was right? Both of them and neither of them.

Owning guns won't solve crime or even decrease it. Better policing, more policing and better punishments will.

In my previous posts I was not advocating taking away guns. Still no one has made an argument why an individual needs a gun capable of going through 7 layers of kevlar. It's insane. If private citizens want to own rifles, shotguns, non-automatic weapons that's fine by me. but when you allow the individual sale of "cop-killer" guns and ammo, automatic rifles, etc. there is no need. I myself own a 9mm handgun. I live in a rough section of inner city in America. I own a gun, it has a trigger lock and only I own a key, and I only bring it out when I go to the range to practice or (heaven forbid), I need it in self defence. I have seen inner city gang fights and the trouble automatic weapons has caused. As for people who advocate firearms for national defence- what America do you live in? The last time a non-American army was on our soil was during the war of 1812. That's almost 200 yrs ago. And the is no longer a militia, and the U.S. government stopped accepting volunteers into the armed forces during WWI. If your a National guardsmen you don't get to bring your M-16 home with you. So if a expertly trained, well led and trained man cannot possess an automatic rifle why should the common man?

you can make cocaine and cocaine is a bit harder to stop the transport of
Making cocaine synthetically is extremely hard. It's also harder to ship because drug sniffing dogs can find it. As far as I know nobody has yet trained a dog to sniff for metal. Also it's easy to build a zip gun.

Making cocaine synthetically is extremely hard. It's also harder to ship because drug sniffing dogs can find it. As far as I know nobody has yet trained a dog to sniff for metal. Also it's easy to build a zip gun.
oh yeah and i dont know of a airport without metal detectors or xraying baggage or anywhere important for that matter either

oh yeah and i dont know of a airport without metal detectors or xraying baggage or anywhere important for that matter either
Cargo ships are rarely searched. Even when they are only a few of the containers are opened.

Cargo ships are rarely searched. Even when they are only a few of the containers are opened.
and how does that help your statement

and how does that help your statement
Guns can be brought in on cargo ships. They needn't be smuggled through an airport.

In my previous posts I was not advocating taking away guns. Still no one has made an argument why an individual needs a gun capable of going through 7 layers of kevlar. It's insane. If private citizens want to own rifles, shotguns, non-automatic weapons that's fine by me. but when you allow the individual sale of "cop-killer" guns and ammo, automatic rifles, etc. there is no need. I myself own a 9mm handgun. I live in a rough section of inner city in America. I own a gun, it has a trigger lock and only I own a key, and I only bring it out when I go to the range to practice or (heaven forbid), I need it in self defence. I have seen inner city gang fights and the trouble automatic weapons has caused. As for people who advocate firearms for national defence- what America do you live in? The last time a non-American army was on our soil was during the war of 1812. That's almost 200 yrs ago. And the is no longer a militia, and the U.S. government stopped accepting volunteers into the armed forces during WWI. If your a National guardsmen you don't get to bring your M-16 hom
e with you. So if a expertly trained, well led and trained man cannot possess an automatic rifle why should the common man?

Unless it's a revolver, your 9mm handgun IS an automatic. Most rifle ammuntion WILL go through body armor. The idea of a "cop-killer" weapon is a demonization created by the Brady Campaign to ban guns it doesn't like. The FN 5.7 has ammunition that is AP but that is not being imported to the US.

Ther is a militia. Read the US Constitution and your state Constitition. Normally it's every able-bodied male from 18-45. It is there to defend against threats both foreign and domestic, like gang crime.

BTW our army is ALL volunteer.

Here's a test. See how long it takes to get your safety lock off in the dark.

Unless it's a revolver, your 9mm handgun IS an automatic. Most rifle ammuntion WILL go through body armor. The idea of a "cop-killer" weapon is a demonization created by the Brady Campaign to ban guns it doesn't like. The FN 5.7 has ammunition that is AP but that is not being imported to the US.

Ther is a militia. Read the US Constitution and your state Constitition. Normally it's every able-bodied male from 18-45. It is there to defend against threats both foreign and domestic, like gang crime.

BTW our army is ALL volunteer.

Here's a test. See how long it takes to get your safety lock off in the dark.
Well, semi-auto anyway. And the guy you quoted condemned "cop killer" bullets, but said that Rifles are OK. Any rifle bigger than a .22 will go through a vest.

Also in my country we trust our government and our system. We dont feel the need to keep our politicians threatened with physical violence. Mind you I don't blame Americans for distrusting your government considering your first ever government consisted of traitors, full of duplicity.

MP Pound : The people have spoken -- the bastard's.

Yep trust your Gov't.

The House of Commons forces through an Anti-hunting bill that wouldn't have passed in the house of Lords.

Yep, trust your Gov't.

The subjects in the UK alledgedly overwhelmingly oppose British forces in Iraq, yet they're still there.

Yep, trust your Gov't.

Guns can be brought in on cargo ships. They needn't be smuggled through an airport.
which is relevant to the point how?

which is relevant to the point how?
My point was that guns can be smuggled in as easily as cocaine, so banning them will only prohibit law abiding citizens from defending themselves.

Erosion of civil liberties coupled with misapplications of socialism, leading to a decline in discipline, whilst at the same time falling standards of police service lead to less police for more people, all of which contributes to a rising crime rate.



So you want to give the Go'vt MORE control over the people?

Robbery, murder and violent crime does not neccassarily mean gun crime or crimes that guns would have prevented.

Also I can probably find some other statistics that go exactly the other way to yours.

Alas crime is a very difficult thing to turn into statistic form. For example in the House of Commons a month ago, Tony Blair and Michael Howard (Opposition leader) were arguing about crime rates under when Michael Howard was Home Secretary back in the 1990s. Both were quoting crime rates from official sources that are officialy recognised - however they were completely different. Howard said crime had dropped by 20% unde rhis Home Secretaryship whereas Blair was arguing that crime had risen under Howard's time. Who was right? Both of them and neither of them.

Owning guns won't solve crime or even decrease it. Better policing, more policing and better punishments will.

Find them then. Find a source showing that crime has decreased since the ban.

So you're saying that your Go'vt is incapable of even getting accurate information on it's own crime rate and yet you "trust" it to make decisions for you?

So you want to give the Go'vt MORE control over the people?
i think hes saying we need more police, which we do. more, better trained, better screened, police

Well, semi-auto anyway. And the guy you quoted condemned "cop killer" bullets, but said that Rifles are OK. Any rifle bigger than a .22 will go through a vest.

He just said automatic. If gang members are running around his streets w/ fully auto weapons, the gun laws and police are not doing their job in the first place.

He says he owns a gun and takes it to the range, but he knows very little about firearms.

He just said automatic. If gang members are running around his streets w/ fully auto weapons, the gun laws and police are not doing their job in the first place.

He says he owns a gun and takes it to the range, but he knows very little about firearms.
That's the impression I got too, but I guess it's possible he worded it wrong or we missunderstood.

So you want to give the Go'vt MORE control over the people?

Oi!

I never said that, from what I can see, nor would I.

I was simply getting annoyed that people see guns as a cure-all or kill-all alternatively.

The world is far too complicated to allow someone to look at something, and say, "This and only this is responsible."

i think hes saying we need more police, which we do. more, better trained, better screened, police

He also stated erosion of civil liberties, like removing the right and ability of the public to defend themselves.

P90 of FN is also made for cops.

http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg13-e.htm
A gun that is going to soon lose out to the MP-7

A gun that is going to soon lose out to the MP-7

You must link to pics. Please?

Heckler-Koch HK G36 assault rifle (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as14-e.htm)

Besides, what's so wrong with owning a gun? Shooting it at a person is wrong but owning one isn't. As long as I don't limit the freedom of someone with it I should be free to decide to have a gun. It's also a good measure to defend myself.


If you buy a gun for protection, then what else would you be doing with it other than shooting somebody?

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to defend themselves, its just thats theres a lot of trigger happy idiots out there, who would shoot people just for going on their property without actually asking why they were there first.

Guns do kill people, and they make it easier for those who are feeling desperate or rash to do something they otherwise wouldn't contemplate. Guns kill law enforcement officers, they kill US troops. But then I suppose its not OK for Iraqis to own their own weapons b/c they are all terrorists? So then Donnie boy is just feeding lambs to the slaughter I imagine?

OT: Is 5.56mm on it's way out for the US military? If so what will they use instead?

Oi!

I never said that, from what I can see, nor would I.

I was simply getting annoyed that people see guns as a cure-all or kill-all alternatively.

The world is far too complicated to allow someone to look at something, and say, "This and only this is responsible."

and I never said they were a cure-all/kill-all. Before the UK gun ban, crime was lowering. Almost immediately afterwards, it started skyrocketing up.

Is there an absolute causality? No. But the evidence there and in the US is sure in favor of it being a primary.

I support more police. No matter how many there are, however, they can never be everywhere at the same time. The US Supreme Court has also stated the the police are NOT obligated to protect you from crime.

I support tougher laws AGAINST CRIMINALS. Most gun laws, however, do nothing but make it more difficult for Law-Abiding Citizens to obtain them and defend themselves against criminals armed or not.

Nothing will ever completely eradicate crime. To take away a persons right to defend themselves against it, though, is just insane.

OT: Is 5.56mm on it's way out for the US military? If so what will they use instead?

Not that I've heard. The new weapon that they're developing uses 5.56 from the reports I've seen/read. Have you seen differently?

Not that I've heard. The new weapon that they're developing uses 5.56 from the reports I've seen/read. Have you seen differently?
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as40-e.htm
You mean that thing?

Not that I've heard. The new weapon that they're developing uses 5.56 from the reports I've seen/read. Have you seen differently?
Unsubstanciated internet rumors only.

OT: Is 5.56mm on it's way out for the US military? If so what will they use instead?
.308 a.k.a. 7.62

Valid, Keci, but the post I intially replied to had the tone of.

Guns about - Fine and dandy.
No more guns - OMG crime everywhere.

The removal of weapons and the full right to self defense in a society teetering is a catalyst.

And with that said...

*gives guns to everyone still here*

I'm hungry, and I've argued all I'm gonna on this thread. Catch you all on the flip side, d0000000000000000ds!

*walks out groaning "I can't believe I just said that..."*

.308 a.k.a. 7.62
Seriously? Isn't that what they dropped in favor of 5.56?

If you buy a gun for protection, then what else would you be doing with it other than shooting somebody?

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to defend themselves, its just thats theres a lot of trigger happy idiots out there, who would shoot people just for going on their property without actually asking why they were there first.

Guns do kill people, and they make it easier for those who are feeling desperate or rash to do something they otherwise wouldn't contemplate. Guns kill law enforcement officers, they kill US troops. But then I suppose its not OK for Iraqis to own their own weapons b/c they are all terrorists? So then Donnie boy is just feeding lambs to the slaughter I imagine?

Target shooting, trap, skeet, hunting, reenactments, collecting...

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. There are SOME trigger happy idiots out there. I believe in personal responsiblility and accountability.

What do you propose to keep guns out of the hands of people who "might" commit a crime?

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as40-e.htm
You mean that thing?

Yeah, that thing. The trend in modern firearms is still w/ the smaller caliber weapons. The (arguable) success of 5.56 in the field is what prompted the Soviets (ignoring Kalishnikov's arguements) to switch from 7.62 to 5.45 mm.

Seriously? Isn't that what they dropped in favor of 5.56?
The reason they switched to the .223 poodleshooter round is because the idea was that if one man was wounded it would take three people out, 2 to treat and remove the wounded man. Works against a conventional opponent who regularly tries to save their soldiers from death. However, against an opponent that does not try to conserve it's men the poodleshooter round sucks. You tend to have to shoot your target quite a few times, whereas a .308 will do much more serious damage.

P90 of FN is also made for cops.

http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg13-e.htm

If it's good enough for the units of Stargate Command, it's good enough for me. :)

mmMMmm Samantha Carter with a gun... rrrrowwwrrrrllll! :D

What is b*ll*cks about crime rising because of gun control? It could be any number of other factors. The less guns about means the likeilhood of people being shot is reduced. If you have a gun in your home means the chances of you being shot rises significantly. i have lived in England all my life and never encountered gun crime, nor do I know any one that has, thank God. We do not have any gun crime on the scale that the USA has. Cananda has more guns per head than the USA, and it has no where near the same amount of gun crime. A criminal who wants a gun, will get a gun, whether legal or not. In England, it will most likely be illegal. Would more guns reduce crime? No, of course not. Any one ever hear of Tony Martin? (That is probably more of the British amongst you)

Freedom and liberty, I own no guns personally I do not care for them but truthfully and I know it is a cliche but guns do not kill people people kill people.

I lack the words to describe what a stupid expression that is.

To extend the reasoning there:

Rocket propelled grenades don't kill people, people kill people...
Heavy artillery doesn't kill people, people kill people...
Tanks don't kill people, people kill people...
Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people...

Yeah, people kill people... but people kill a LOT MORE people a LOT EASIER anda LOT FASTER when you equip them to do it so efficiently.

Any one ever hear of Tony Martin? (That is probably more of the British amongst you)

You mean that guy that was put in jail for defending his home from violent criminals after being burglarized over 2 doz times w/ the police doing nothing? The guy who is being sued and threatened by the surviving criminal and his using gov't funds?

I lack the words to describe what a stupid expression that is.

To extend the reasoning there:

Rocket propelled grenades don't kill people, people kill people...
Heavy artillery doesn't kill people, people kill people...
Tanks don't kill people, people kill people...
Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people...



Slippery slope..slippery slope.. lets all slide down the slippery slope...

Slippery slope..slippery slope.. lets all slide down the slippery slope...

It has nothing to do with a slippery slope. It's an illustration of the ludicrousness of that particular saying.

"There exists a tool which is DESIGNED to kill people but this tool isn't a threat. Oh no, IT doesn't kill people, people kill people. Why, if the tool just sat there not being used and we never put it in the hands of a person how many people would it kill? None. See, it's perfectly harmless on it's own as long as there are no people around to use it... therefore we should have no problem putting them in the hands of people (who 5 seconds ago we were pointing out were the ones who killed people) and let them use them because we just established how harmless they are!"

That's idiocy.

It has nothing to do with a slippery slope. It's an illustration of the ludicrousness of that particular saying.

"There exists a tool which is DESIGNED to kill people but this tool isn't a threat. Oh no, IT doesn't kill people, people kill people. Why, if the tool just sat there not being used and we never put it in the hands of a person how many people would it kill? None. See, it's perfectly harmless on it's own as long as there are no people around to use it... therefore we should have no problem putting them in the hands of people (who 5 seconds ago we were pointing out were the ones who killed people) and let them use them because we just established how harmless they are!"

That's idiocy.
Guns are sold for use in target shooting, collecting, hunting, and self defense. They aren't intended to commit murder. You claim that they should be illegal because they make murder easy, but one could easily murder a huge number of people with a bomb made from items bought at your local hardware and garden store. Should we ban everything that could be used as a weapon?

Guns are sold for use in target shooting, collecting, hunting, and self defense. They aren't intended to commit murder.

They are intended to kill people. That is why they were invented, that is what they are designed to do.

Should we ban everything that could be used as a weapon?

If it's primary purpose is as a lethal weapon you're damn right there should be serious restrictions on who is allowed to own and use one.

Since almost ANYTHING can be improvised into some form of weapon, no, we should not (and cannot) ban everything that could be used as a weapon. But guns are optimized as weapons. It's their primary purpose and they serve no other useful function. I'm sorry, but I don't think your desire to personally amuse yourself by blowing holes in paper targets with them or having something cool and shiny in a display case on your wall outweighs the threat to the safety of society in general that is posed by having the things widely available.

And don't even start with hunting rifles. You want a hunting rifle? Fine. Provide proof that you require it to feed yourself or your family, register the weapon, and take personal responsibility if it is ever used against another human being. Meaning, you damn well better lock it up REAL secure when you're not using it.

[QUOTE=Reformentia]They are intended to kill people. That is why they were invented, that is what they are designed to do.



If it's primary purpose is as a lethal weapon you're damn right there should be serious restrictions on who is allowed to own and use one.

Since almost ANYTHING can be improvised into some form of weapon, no, we should not (and cannot) ban everything that could be used as a weapon. But guns are optimized as weapons. It's their primary purpose and they serve no other useful function. QUOTE]
What they are intended to do is determined by their owner. Their primary purpose is not to commit murder.

What they are intended to do is determined by their owner.

It's determined by their design. Guns are designed to fire small projectiles at high speed and accuracy over extended ranges with enough force to penetrate a human body.

Their primary purpose is not to commit murder.

Murder is a question of legality, you're the only one using that term.

Their primary purpose is to kill. Whether or not that killing is classifiable as murder is a legal issue.

Just as the primary purpose of a pen is to write things. That's what IT is designed to do. Every thought that goes into the manufacture and design of a pen is directed at making it a more effective writing instrument. Can you use a pen for something else? Sure. Go nuts. I'm sure you can find a hundred uses for a small thin cylinder with a pointy end, but that doesn't change what it is intended to do.

MP Pound : The people have spoken -- the bastard's.

Yep trust your Gov't.

The House of Commons forces through an Anti-hunting bill that wouldn't have passed in the house of Lords.

Yep, trust your Gov't.

The subjects in the UK alledgedly overwhelmingly oppose British forces in Iraq, yet they're still there.

Yep, trust your Gov't.

I trust my government eve if I oppose what they are doing - it what we old fashion sorts call 'loyalty'

What is b*ll*cks about crime rising because of gun control? It could be any number of other factors. The less guns about means the likeilhood of people being shot is reduced. If you have a gun in your home means the chances of you being shot rises significantly. i have lived in England all my life and never encountered gun crime, nor do I know any one that has, thank God. We do not have any gun crime on the scale that the USA has. Cananda has more guns per head than the USA, and it has no where near the same amount of gun crime. A criminal who wants a gun, will get a gun, whether legal or not. In England, it will most likely be illegal. Would more guns reduce crime? No, of course not. Any one ever hear of Tony Martin? (That is probably more of the British amongst you)

Yes. The poor man was locked up for defending his home from the wosrt sort of yobs.

Yes. The poor man was locked up for defending his home from the wosrt sort of yobs.

Was he the farmer who shot the burgler in the back while he was running away?

Yeeee-up.

Check our chocolate too. :)
Haha! :)

Haha haha! :)

Ha ha! :)

Hardly the poster boy of "guns for self-defence" then.

What is b*ll*cks about crime rising because of gun control? It could be any number of other factors. The less guns about means the likeilhood of people being shot is reduced. If you have a gun in your home means the chances of you being shot rises significantly. i have lived in England all my life and never encountered gun crime, nor do I know any one that has, thank God. We do not have any gun crime on the scale that the USA has. Cananda has more guns per head than the USA, and it has no where near the same amount of gun crime. A criminal who wants a gun, will get a gun, whether legal or not. In England, it will most likely be illegal. Would more guns reduce crime? No, of course not. Any one ever hear of Tony Martin? (That is probably more of the British amongst you)
*Sighs* Guns are called "The Great Equalizer" for a reason.You do not have to be extensively trained to fire a gun, nor do you have to be truly big. Ergo, without law abiding civilians owning guns the criminals have the upper hand, since they tend to be bigger, and/or have better training at hurting people, if only from experience. The murder rate in the US has been going down for the last 60 years or so while the supply of guns has gotten continuously larger.

The murder rate in the US has been going down for the last 60 years or so while the supply of guns has gotten continuously larger.

Murder rate in 1960:9,110
Murder rate in 1970:16,000
Murder rate in 1980:23,040
Murder rate in 1990:23,440
Murder rate in 2000:15,517
Murder rate in 2003:14,408

It's only in the past 10 years that the murder rates have started to drop.

Sources:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl2-9.xls (for 2003 figure)

Edit: Hmmm disaster centre is looking a bit suspect. the FBI reports 2000's murder rate as just over 13,000.

The murder rate in the US has been going down for the last 60 years or so

The murder rate in the U.S. peaked in the early 90s, not the early 40s.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/htus00.pdf

I seem to remember something else happened in the early 90s... something to do with assault weapons... I'm sure it'll come back to me in a minute...

The murder rate in the U.S. peaked in the early 90s, not the early 40s.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/htus00.pdf

I seem to remember something else happened in the early 90s... something to do with assault weapons... I'm sure it'll come back to me in a minute...

That bill that was enacted 3 years after the crime rate started going down. The one that even the NAS has admitted did nothing to reduce crime.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/archive/s_293242.html

Also over 30 states enacted Carry and Concealed Carry Laws.

Was he the farmer who shot the burgler in the back while he was running away?

Source? Every article I've seen had the criminals advancing towards him.

It's a well known fact that he blew away the burgler that was running away. No, I don't know the source. Admittedly, the burglar shouldn't have been there, but Tony Martin shouldn't have shot him. The man had several rottweilers and had booby-trapped his house. And had an illegally held firearm.

It's a well known fact that he blew away the burgler that was running away. No, I don't know the source. Admittedly, the burglar shouldn't have been there, but Tony Martin shouldn't have shot him. The man had several rottweilers and had booby-trapped his house. And had an illegally held firearm.

Maybe because he'd been robbed over 2 Doz. times w/o the police doing anything. Against multiple criminals w/ a history of violence.

A well known fact w/o evidence apparently.

Granted. But do you really think that if more people had guns and were prepared to use them, that crime would actually go down?

Depends on the society in question.

Granted. But do you really think that if more people had guns and were prepared to use them, that crime would actually go down?

In countries like the UK, US, and Australia, Yes.

While Nsendalen may not like causality, in every US state that has passed a Carry or Concealed carry law, crime dropped an average of 10% w/in a year.

In Illinois, Chicago has a murder rate of about 650 /yr w/ a population of about 3 million giving it a about 22/100K people.

Illinois as a whole has about 900 murders total w/ a population of 12.5 million.

You take out Chicago,Illinois murder rate goes down to .38/100K

Guess which part has the most stringent gun laws and the most gang violence/crime?

The reason the UK has such strict gun laws is because of two massacres, the Hungerford Massacre (1987) and the Dunblain School Massacre (1996/7, can't remeber), both using legally gained weapons, rather than illegally gained weapons. As such, since the gun laws have been tightened, the chances of such a massacre happening again has gone down.

A Belgian superpistol has created a lot of commotion in the United States, The anti-weaponlobby and local politieunions plead to ban the FiveseveN from FN Herstal. They call the weapon "copkiller" because it can shoot through a bulletp roofvest from a hundred meters distance. Here in our nation the weapon is not for sale.

The FiveseveN of FN is the most modern pistol in the world. It is a weapon thats finds its origins in the military and it can be very deadly at large distances. Bulletproofvests are pointless. The pistol will penetrate 48 layers of kevlar, the strong material of which bulletproof vests are made. FN sells the seapon only to police and militaryservices, but developed a civil version for the 'gunnut' Americans with altered munition. But that pistol too can shoot a bulletproof vest to pieces, the antiweaponlobby says, who tested the weapon. Local policeunions and local corps' are pulling on the alarmbel. Especially because the FiveseveN found its way to the underworld. Policeunions are trying to ban the weapon through the political ways.
Congress will soon vote on a law to forbid the weapon "This pistol can kill officers from more than twohundred meters away" Elliot Engel, the congressmember who wants to see it banned from civil use.
"Our FiveseveN is only sold with trainingammunition in the US" Therefore, the pistol isnt any more dangerous than other weapons, those who are opposed to the weapon are only trying to create a chaos." Robert Sauvage said" Our pistol was checked by authorities and found conform to al requirements".

1)This weapon doesnt hit anyone at distances over 50-60 meters, and the 5.72mm round feels like a needle when getting hit, the main emphasis is to immobilize your (protected) opponent, not to kill him.
2)Is it correct that it costs 650$?
3)Should it be banned from use by civilians?
4)This article is, as you may have noticed, copied and translated. Therefore i apologize for gramatical faults that you have encountered.
5)Belgian guns rock

True, the FiveseveN is a nice pistol but I think you are overhyping it. So what if it can penetrate 48 layers of kevlar? Its not like people wear that much. At close range a lot of pistols will penetrate bulletproof vests.

The FiveseveN isn't the only bulletproofvest penetrating weapon FN makes you know. The FN P-90 submachine gun will also go through two dozen layers of kevlar from a pretty good distance. However, most FN weapons are overlooked.

FN Herstal has been getting pretty desperate lately with marketing the P90 and FiveseveN. They aren't bad guns but I'll take a Glock, 1911A1, or USP anyday over a FiveseveN. The MP5 is a far greater piece of work than the P90 too, in my opinion anyway.

And the best guns don't come from Belgium, they come from Germany.

I'll take a Walther PP ( thats a 32 caliber round ) any day - It's not gun gun, it's not the round - it's the person placing the round in the right place - and I do like the glaser safety round, for very obvious reasons.

I'll take a Walther PP ( thats a 32 caliber round ) any day - It's not gun gun, it's not the round - it's the person placing the round in the right place - and I do like the glaser safety round, for very obvious reasons.

Glaser Safety Round? I'm unfamiliar w/ it.

The FN, Desert Eagle a Dualies are my favorite weapons in Counter Strike: Source :D

Murder rate in 1960:9,110
Murder rate in 1970:16,000
Murder rate in 1980:23,040
Murder rate in 1990:23,440
Murder rate in 2000:15,517
Murder rate in 2003:14,408

It's only in the past 10 years that the murder rates have started to drop.

Sources:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl2-9.xls (for 2003 figure)

Edit: Hmmm disaster centre is looking a bit suspect. the FBI reports 2000's murder rate as just over 13,000.


*looks at the stats from the 80's onwards*

I wonder how much of that decline was from the anti-drug actions of the ATF and other anti-drug officials or policies. Not that I wouldn't say that tougher gun laws would have lead to the decline as well. Not to mention anti-gang tactics the police would have been using at that point.

automatic KP II "Goliath" (http://www.home.zonnet.nl/erhv-dewaal/images/kleinmateriaal/katapult.jpg)

Weapons don't provide security.

I guess the US has the most advanced weaponry. And did it prevent 9/11? I guess not.

So, why not? The state didn't have that missile defense shield, right?

Or maybe something else?

Or was there just someone mad at the US? Why? Maybe bin Laden didn't get his last paycheck for working with the CIA?


As with Information Security, or any other Risk, technology is the least important issue.

While the 5.7mm round is interesting, the FBi did after much testing discover that many 9x19mm roudns were actually better at penetrating armor at the rnages suggested for the 5.7mm round.

The 5.56mm round is here to stay with the US military for the next 5-10years, the new 6.8mm SPC round is beign tested but it is intended more asa roudn to be used by special forces and rnager units when operating in urban enviroments, 7,62mm NATO is making a comeback with the reintroduction of M14 DMR rifles at squad and platoon levels.

Its not as if there were huge numbers of legally armed british people before the firearms ban following dumblane, the vast majority of firearms are IIRC held by farmers and games keepers under Shotgun licenses which weren't affected. Yes there are some down right oddities in the legislation (like banning air psitols that use self contained air/pellet cartriages be cause they "could" be converted to fire real bullets. Which isn't eaxctly practical as you would need a new barrel and have to completely rebiuld the revolver section...).

Fire arms crime in the UK is mroe likely to be linked to the recetn influx of foreign organised crime groups and thier links to the arms stockpiles left after the blakans than removing a few thousand 9mm target psitols.

persoanlly i would like a gun but i can udnerstand why having one might be a good idea and i can quie happily make do with an AEG replica of a proper assault rifle.

True, the FiveseveN is a nice pistol but I think you are overhyping it. So what if it can penetrate 48 layers of kevlar? Its not like people wear that much. At close range a lot of pistols will penetrate bulletproof vests.

The FiveseveN isn't the only bulletproofvest penetrating weapon FN makes you know. The FN P-90 submachine gun will also go through two dozen layers of kevlar from a pretty good distance. However, most FN weapons are overlooked.

FN Herstal has been getting pretty desperate lately with marketing the P90 and FiveseveN. They aren't bad guns but I'll take a Glock, 1911A1, or USP anyday over a FiveseveN. The MP5 is a far greater piece of work than the P90 too, in my opinion anyway.

And the best guns don't come from Belgium, they come from Germany.

Me i'll go for the P90, you can simply hold two P90s above your head and fire them without having much trouble with recoil. There are many pistols (like the M1911) that couldnt beat the P90 at this.


Here in Europe we are not banned from having guns, hunting rifles can be easily obtained here in my country. For pistols and rifles however there are strict rules and regulations, not everyone can get a weapon and those who are allowed to get one usually get their license after one year. During that year you have to take 'exams' to make sure you are actually sane and responsible.

The P90 and FiveseveN cant be bought here, not even with training ammunition. Some P90s were stolen several years ago and one of those turned up in the hands of a criminal robbing a moneytransport. There are many policecorps' here who have to do their job with 25-year old Uzi's or other less comon weapons (Like a Beretta PM12).

Note: one department sold all its MP5s to a foreign policedept. and bought P90s instead. Lol, they may have been desperate, they are quite succesfull at selling their P90s today.

Strath: A 9mm can pierce through kevlar at close range but fails when it comes up against hard, light armor like titanium/kevlar. The 5.7mm will penetrate such protection(as well as helmets).
Personally i dont think a handweapon is so important(I'm not with the police) when it comes to armorpenetration, i think thats the job of a rifle. pistols are a last option, rarely used by soldiers who prefer to get ammo/parts for their rifle if they experience problems instead of taking out a short ranged sidearm.

*looks at the stats from the 80's onwards*

I wonder how much of that decline was from the anti-drug actions of the ATF and other anti-drug officials or policies. Not that I wouldn't say that tougher gun laws would have lead to the decline as well. Not to mention anti-gang tactics the police would have been using at that point.

Over the past ten years, private ownership of firearms in the hands of civilians in the US has increased by 49 million additional firearms (total current firearms estimated to be in possession). 33 States have also passed "shall issue" concealed carry laws - meaning that as long as you're not a felon, the police HAVE TO give you a carry permit.

The gun laws, if anything, have gotten more lax in 33 states - and tougher in the others. Statistics show that the crime rate has dropped significantly in those 33 states, while climbing in the others.

ATF doesn't do anti-drug operations. That's the DEA. And despite spending 40 billion per year, and incarcerating large numbers of people, the cost of drugs is cheaper than it ever was. The drug war's only real effect is to cause more than 50 percent of the gun violence in the form of turf wars between gangs of dealers.

The most dangerous weapon to come out of Belgium has been the waffle.

Its true, the biggest killer in North America is obesity - and since I myself can say that I am addicted to these crisp brown breakfast treats... I can understand how they would affect people prone to over-eating! These little devils are more addicting than crack cocaine or heroin!!

*stands up in front of the microphone, and looks over the crowd ashamed*

My name is Lasc, and I'm addicted to waffles. :(