Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Hassan, Ft. Hood, Wired: What, exactly, is a ''cop killer gun''?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...op-killer-gun/

    News reports on the Fort Hood rampage say that the alleged shooter, Maj. Nidal Hasan, used an FN Herstal Five-Seven pistol — described in some reports as a “cop killer” gun. What, exactly, makes the Five-Seven different from other handguns?
    The Five-Seven is chambered for the 5.7 x 28mm cartridge, ammunition originally developed by FN Herstal for the FN P90 Personal Defense Weapon. The P90 was conceived as a compact, powerful weapon that could be carried by aircraft crews, vehicle drivers and other troops who needed a weapon that was smaller than a carbine but larger than a pistol.
    The P90 — like a competing personal defense weapon design, the 4.6mm Heckler & Koch MP7 — is supposed to pack more punch than submachine guns that fire a standard pistol rounds (9mm, say, or .45). And personal defense weapons are supposed to be capable of penetrating some kinds of body armor. As it happens, the Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia, has been mulling the requirements for a personal defense weapon for a few years now, although it’s far from clear the Army would procure a weapon built around a new cartridge.
    I’ve seen a range demo of the MP7, and it can indeed punch through a “soft” vest or a Kevlar helmet (whether it could penetrate SAPI plates is a different matter). Gun control group The Brady Campaign says it bought and test-fired a Five-Seven, and that it successfully penetrated a police vest. That said, it doesn’t seem quite accurate to call the Five-Seven a pocket-sized assault rifle. Its barrel would give it a lower muzzle velocity than a PN90; likewise, it strikes me as unlikely that it would give a shooter much more accuracy and effective range than a standard pistol. And plain-vanilla pistol round can be devastating enough: Think of the Virginia Tech shooter, who used a Glock 9mm and Walther .22.

    We don’t know at this point a lot of the details: Exactly what kind of ammunition the shooter used; how many shots in total were fired; and at what range. That will take a lot of police work, and a lot of patience.
    Still, the tragedy at Fort Hood seems likely to renew debate: Both on gun control, and on the kinds of measures to protect troops while they are on base, and unarmed.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Sidearms should be issued to all qualified NCO's/Petty OfficersE-5 and above and all qualified Officers on all US military installations.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040

    Post imported post

    That is blindingly obvious....except to the people who matter.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County VA, ,
    Posts
    207

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Sidearms should be issued to all qualified NCO's/Petty OfficersE-5 and above and all qualified Officers on all US military installations.
    Only NCO's, E-5+, and Officers should be able to defend themselves any time, anywhere on base? Is that really what you think?



    Edit: reread post, decided it didn't make sense, and added "on base"

  5. #5
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Wangmuf wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Sidearms should be issued to all qualified NCO's/Petty OfficersE-5 and above and all qualified Officers on all US military installations.
    Only NCO's, E-5+, and Officers should be able to defend themselves any time, anywhere on base? Is that really what you think?



    Edit: reread post, decided it didn't make sense, and added "on base"
    Jr. enlistedare not always paragons of good sense w/o supervision.I've got 20 yrsin active duty that would verify that from experience. Neither are many Sr. enlisted or officers... thus the 'qualified' caveat'.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Augusta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Wangmuf wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Sidearms should be issued to all qualified NCO's/Petty OfficersE-5 and above and all qualified Officers on all US military installations.
    Only NCO's, E-5+, and Officers should be able to defend themselves any time, anywhere on base? Is that really what you think?



    Edit: reread post, decided it didn't make sense, and added "on base"
    Jr. enlistedare not always paragons of good sense w/o supervision.I've got 20 yrsin active duty that would verify that from experience. Neither are many Sr. enlisted or officers... thus the 'qualified' caveat'.
    I concur. I'm an E-5 with 10 years of service under my belt so far and there are quite a few lower enlisted I know that I would not necessarily trust to be armed at all times. I liked the qualified caveat, since there are officers and senior leadership that could probably do without a sidearm during most instances.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County VA, ,
    Posts
    207

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Wangmuf wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Sidearms should be issued to all qualified NCO's/Petty OfficersE-5 and above and all qualified Officers on all US military installations.
    Only NCO's, E-5+, and Officers should be able to defend themselves any time, anywhere on base? Is that really what you think?



    Edit: reread post, decided it didn't make sense, and added "on base"
    Jr. enlistedare not always paragons of good sense w/o supervision.I've got 20 yrsin active duty that would verify that from experience. Neither are many Sr. enlisted or officers... thus the 'qualified' caveat'.
    So you would control, even more than just by rank, who should be able to have any means necessary to protect themselves on base? Gun control, no thanks. If they're good enough to die for their country, they should be good enough to protect themselves.

    That goes for civilians, too. If they're necessary for the base to function, then their right to self-defense should be available.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Wangmuf wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Wangmuf wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Sidearms should be issued to all qualified NCO's/Petty OfficersE-5 and above and all qualified Officers on all US military installations.
    Only NCO's, E-5+, and Officers should be able to defend themselves any time, anywhere on base? Is that really what you think?



    Edit: reread post, decided it didn't make sense, and added "on base"
    Jr. enlistedare not always paragons of good sense w/o supervision.I've got 20 yrsin active duty that would verify that from experience. Neither are many Sr. enlisted or officers... thus the 'qualified' caveat'.
    So you would control, even more than just by rank, who should be able to have any means necessary to protect themselves on base? Gun control, no thanks. If they're good enough to die for their country, they should be good enough to protect themselves.

    That goes for civilians, too. If they're necessary for the base to function, then their right to self-defense should be available.
    You seem to have no direct military experience. I would advise that you heed the advice of those of us who do. I stood armed watches at age 17 because I had prior firearms experience, a sober disposition and weapons were my primary job function. I.E: Vetted & 'qualified'. The military is totally unlike the civilian world, in that the needs of the service come first.In short... the service not only owns the weapons... but YOU. It's not a democracy.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County VA, ,
    Posts
    207

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Wangmuf wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Wangmuf wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Sidearms should be issued to all qualified NCO's/Petty OfficersE-5 and above and all qualified Officers on all US military installations.
    Only NCO's, E-5+, and Officers should be able to defend themselves any time, anywhere on base? Is that really what you think?



    Edit: reread post, decided it didn't make sense, and added "on base"
    Jr. enlistedare not always paragons of good sense w/o supervision.I've got 20 yrsin active duty that would verify that from experience. Neither are many Sr. enlisted or officers... thus the 'qualified' caveat'.
    So you would control, even more than just by rank, who should be able to have any means necessary to protect themselves on base? Gun control, no thanks. If they're good enough to die for their country, they should be good enough to protect themselves.

    That goes for civilians, too. If they're necessary for the base to function, then their right to self-defense should be available.
    You seem to have no direct military experience. I would advise that you heed the advice of those of us who do. I stood armed watches at age 17 because I had prior firearms experience, a sober disposition and weapons were my primary job function. I.E: Vetted & 'qualified'. The military is totally unlike the civilian world, in that the needs of the service come first.In short... the service not only owns the weapons... but YOU. It's not a democracy.
    I don't think whether or not I have military experience has anything to do with the basic right to self-defense being just that, a basic right that EVERYONE is born with, regardless of where they work, or who they work for.


    Edit: I do, kind of, understand what you're saying. I know quite a few Marines who probably should not carry a weapon except in times and at places of war. However, I don't believe they should be "not allowed to" if they so choose to.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    Wangmuf wrote:
    I don't think whether or not I have military experience has anything to do with the basic right to self-defense being just that, a basic right that EVERYONE is born with, regardless of where they work, or who they work for.


    Edit: I do, kind of, understand what you're saying. I know quite a few Marines who probably should not carry a weapon except in times and at places of war. However, I don't believe they should be "not allowed to" if they so choose to.
    To paraphrase the old refrain: "The military exists to protect freedom, not to practice it."

    Military discipline requires rules that are downright offensive in civilian life. And not carrying a person firearm is the least offensive thing about it in many cases. we have no draft. Nobody has to sign up. Those who so are to be honored, but they know the rules going in and have no room to object.

    That said, having rendered most enlisted men defenseless while on base, the military certainly owes them a much greater degree of protection than it has given. Arming additional, senior and qualified NCOs and officers is one start. Dropping the PC BS and drumming out of the service (and thus out of any access to the base) traitors like Hassan is also important. Having additional MPs, security officers, or men standing guard and ready to respond to this type of thing may also be needful. And swift, proper punishment for crimes of violence against disarmed servicemen is also essential.

    Charles


    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    Well, as the anti-gunners put it, arming E-5s and above would be a "good first step". See how that works and expand as necessary.

    Anti-gunners have achieved what they have incrementally. We need to do the same thing.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Wangmuf wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Wangmuf wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Wangmuf wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Sidearms should be issued to all qualified NCO's/Petty OfficersE-5 and above and all qualified Officers on all US military installations.
    Only NCO's, E-5+, and Officers should be able to defend themselves any time, anywhere on base? Is that really what you think?



    Edit: reread post, decided it didn't make sense, and added "on base"
    Jr. enlistedare not always paragons of good sense w/o supervision.I've got 20 yrsin active duty that would verify that from experience. Neither are many Sr. enlisted or officers... thus the 'qualified' caveat'.
    So you would control, even more than just by rank, who should be able to have any means necessary to protect themselves on base? Gun control, no thanks. If they're good enough to die for their country, they should be good enough to protect themselves.

    That goes for civilians, too. If they're necessary for the base to function, then their right to self-defense should be available.
    You seem to have no direct military experience. I would advise that you heed the advice of those of us who do. I stood armed watches at age 17 because I had prior firearms experience, a sober disposition and weapons were my primary job function. I.E: Vetted & 'qualified'. The military is totally unlike the civilian world, in that the needs of the service come first.In short... the service not only owns the weapons... but YOU. It's not a democracy.
    I don't think whether or not I have military experience has anything to do with the basic right to self-defense being just that, a basic right that EVERYONE is born with, regardless of where they work, or who they work for.


    Edit: I do, kind of, understand what you're saying. I know quite a few Marines who probably should not carry a weapon except in times and at places of war. However, I don't believe they should be "not allowed to" if they so choose to.
    You DO, in fact give up a lot of your rights when you sign up to defend the rights of others.

    Go figure.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  13. #13
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Swanzey,NH, ,
    Posts
    218

    Post imported post

    I have been told that most Army Bases are "Open Posts"(no sentries on the gates) I don't know if this is the same with all services. Also I have learned that some bases are using DOD Police instead of MP's. As far as arming all personnell at all times, I have mixed fellings with this one, Are we so far from the time of Rifles in the barracks that now we have gone to using an arms room because it is easier to not trust our service personnel, except in closely supervised performance. We need to take a close look on how this came about, and why. That said, "SEMPER FI" and HappyBirthday to all my fellow JARHEADS

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    84

    Post imported post

    Wow, 11 replies and not a single one on topic to the original request for information.

    While I don't agree with the use of the term "cop killer", the FN Herstal 5.7 was explicitly designed to be able to penetrate body armor with appropriate ammunitaion. It is a small caliber at very high velocity. The gun was obviously not designed for use against police but for use by armed forces/SWAT in situations when they might be facing opponents wearing body armor. Like any gun it is a tool "designed" for legitimate purposes but capable of being put to illegitimate purposes.

    I don't know what ammunition was available to this man or what ammunition he was using and specifically whether it was army issue steel core, armor penetrating or civilian ammunition not designed to penetrate body armor. To call the gun a "cop killer" gun is obviously pejorative but at least somewhat more warranted in this case than in some other situations in which the term "cop killer" is used to describe general purpose firearms.



    Edit, I see you edited the original question and replaced it with the answer, similar to what I gave.



    Now I look like a doofus.


  15. #15
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    Jr. enlistedare not always paragons of good sense w/o supervision.I've got 20 yrsin active duty that would verify that from experience. Neither are many Sr. enlisted or officers... thus the 'qualified' caveat'.
    Most officers I've served with should've been allowed to pack a water pistol! As for junior enlisted being"not always paragons of good sense" that applies to a large segment of the population as a whole.

    If junior enlisted personnelcan be trusted with loaded weaps in a war zone then why should'nt they be trusted with loaded weaps elsewhere? If anything makes no sense that is it.
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •