Should the FN Five seveN be legal for civilian ownership?

This is the FN FiveseveN


This gun is designed to fire the 5.7x28mm SS190 cartridge. The 5.7x28mm SS190 cartridge was designed to offer maximum penetration of modern personal body armor while minimizing weapon weight, dimensions, and recoil. The P90 PDW was designed around this bullet and the Five seveN was designed as the sidearm complement to the P90. This weapon will consistently penetrate modern body armor variants and is advertised as being capable of penetrating standard PASGT vests at 300 meters and standart CRISAT (kevlar + titanium) vests at 100 meters.

Fabrique Nationale only offers this weapon for sale to military and Law enforcement customers but it is available for civilian purchase through third party sellers ( auction sites for instance). There are no laws regarding this guns legality in America ( at least not yet). My question is should there be laws banning the civilian ownership of this gun in America?

ummm, how about anywhere? since when have the food we eat used armor? ..

boogyman
My question is should there be laws banning the civilian ownership of this gun in America?

I have problems with this. On the one hand, this is a gun that, quite simply, is going to be used to kill police officers. Thats what its for. So how can it not be banned. On the other hand, baning it isn't going to keep it off the street. Regular citizens, sure, why not let them have it? Its the black market trade in it thats the problem. But allowing it into the country in large numbers, ie not banning it, is going to result in a large black market trade in it.
Also, in all honsety, while a citizen might have a right to the gun for legit purposes, well, really, is there any great need for it? So I suspect that the ban on it won't necessarily result in such public uproar as to be untenable.
What might be more effective is having harsher penalties for any crimes commited with it.

Originally posted by Nygdan
What might be more effective is having harsher penalties for any crimes commited with it.

Don't see how you could get much worse than maximum penalty. But anything chambered to this cartidge makes me....uncomfortable. Against unarmored targets, it does almost nothing. Against armored ones, it's deadly. They're cop killers, pure and simple. I say ban them, plus 10-year mandatory sentences for anyone in possesion of one.

DE

Originally posted by DeusEx
Don't see how you could get much worse than maximum penalty.

Death is not given out to all crimes commited with hand guns. I don't think that the maximum penalty need be given out for all of them anyway.

They're cop killers, pure and simple. I say ban them, plus 10-year mandatory sentences for anyone in possesion of one.

Seems reasonable. A definite choice in the matter.

Here is a link to the ATF statement that was made earlier this year concerning the 5.7 pistol and ammunition. This is where it stands from a legal perspective in the U.S.

FTB classified SS196 ammunition as not armor piercing. ATF.gov

According to FNH USA, FN Herstal tested the SS192 ammunition. SS192 ammunition did not penetrate the Level IIIA vests that were tested. FNH USA states that SS196, Hornady V-Max 40 gr. bullets fired from a 4-3/4 inch barrel did not penetrate the Level II vests that were used in testing.

What caught my eye is that the SS192 - Hollow Point did not get stopped by the IIIA (higher protection), and the SS196 - Sporting round was stopped by a II (lower protection level vest.

also included in the ATF article, FNH USA has informed FTB that SS192 is no longer imported for commercial sale to the United States and that commercial sales of 5.7 X 28mm ammunition are restricted to the SS196 (not armor piercing).

The Fraternal Order of Police has also put out an fairly neutral announcement, but opposing arguments can be read thanks to Gun Week and a memo supposedly released by the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement. I cannot find an original link to the memo or by searching their site, but the contents can be found via this Google Search

Related Topic
Information on Body Armor Threat-Protection Levels

[edit on 13-3-2005 by Spectre]

I see nothing wrong with them being banned in Canada. It is your country; I would not be so presumptuous as to tell you how to make or follow your own laws.

I'm not so sure about the SS196 being stopped by II armor. Sounds...iffy. Also, another major concern is blunt force trauma caused by the round. I'm starting to wonder if it is more significant than the average round.

OTS, it's not about countries- about protecting our law-enforcing homeboys. They got enough crap to deal with out there.

DE

DeusEx says:

"OTS, it's not about countries- about protecting our law-enforcing homeboys. They got enough crap to deal with out there."

If you choose to think of your government enforcers as "law-enforcing homeboys", that is, of course, your opinion. Maybe you've been reading too many of the Sgt. Preston of the RCMP comic-books; I do not know.

But here in my country, we have good reason to believe that our government, like any government anywhere, is not to be trusted; in the final analysis it is up to the citizenry, not government agents to protect the freedoms delineated in our Constitution.

Contrary to the beliefs of many uninformed non-Americans (and, I am sorry to say, Americans as well) guns are not about hunting, not about shooting sports, and not about waving around as a penis-substitute.

Guns are, quite simply, the citizenry's last and best effort to protect us against Bad Guys who are intent on constraining our freedoms, and these Bad Guys can be from any government on Earth, including our own.

Our "law-enforcement homeboys" can be changed, at the stroke of a pen, into domestic sturmabteilungen, and it is our responsibility and duty to stop them if the unthinkable happens and such a state of affairs comes to pass.

This means, quite simply, weapons parity with them. If they have armor, we need something to defeat that armor.

Understand this: The people who would be buying these weapons and ammunition legally are the very ones who would not use them except in extremis; those who have no compunction about shooting cops doing their job are the kind of slime who would get the ammunition extra-legally, anyway.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
If you choose to think of your government enforcers as "law-enforcing homeboys", that is, of course, your opinion. Maybe you've been reading too many of the Sgt. Preston of the RCMP comic-books; I do not know.

I work with cops, go to school with cops. My cousin is in the RCMP academy. My teachers are cops. They are, in the most literal sense, my homeboys. I have a vested interest in them being alive. And since our gun laws are a lot stricter up here, I'm stuck vesting a lot of trust in them.

But here in my country, we have good reason to believe that our government, like any government anywhere, is not to be trusted; in the final analysis it is up to the citizenry, not government agents to protect the freedoms delineated in our Constitution.

Contrary to the beliefs of many uninformed non-Americans (and, I am sorry to say, Americans as well) guns are not about hunting, not about shooting sports, and not about waving around as a penis-substitute.

Guns are, quite simply, the citizenry's last and best effort to protect us against Bad Guys who are intent on constraining our freedoms, and these Bad Guys can be from any government on Earth, including our own.

I believe we have discussed this many a time, friend. I support an armed populace, but I don't support easy access to cop-killing weapons. By making them available, it increases the risk of them falling into criminal hands through theft or even legal means.

Our "law-enforcement homeboys" can be changed, at the stroke of a pen, into domestic sturmabteilungen, and it is our responsibility and duty to stop them if the unthinkable happens and such a state of affairs comes to pass.

This means, quite simply, weapons parity with them. If they have armor, we need something to defeat that armor.

Understand this: The people who would be buying these weapons and ammunition legally are the very ones who would not use them except in extremis; those who have no compunction about shooting cops doing their job are the kind of slime who would get the ammunition extra-legally, anyway.

The issue isn't one of the militia- I'm pretty sure 90% of rifle rounds will go right through a vest. The issue is that this pistol is concealable, small, and its standard ammunition can go right through an officer's vest. So, you have the perfect anti-police weapon. THAT is my issue. I like weapons parity. If I could, I would relax gun ownership restrictions up here. But I really don't want this particular weapon anywhere near the streets. Secondary issue- guns from your country cross the border. So, it's available in your country, and not available here, someone's going to make a killing sellign them to gang-bangers and bikers up here, which isn't cool.

DE

It's correct that the Five seveN is a legal firearm, the SS190 ammo is banned from citizen owers who do not have a class III license IIRC.

It's JHP rounds will definitly not pierce armor, however, I am more concerned with monster guns like the Desert Eagle .50AE, That weapon exerts so much power, I don't think that a body armor will stop that round very well...at all...

And don't forget since the AWB was lifted, there are AR-15 PISTOLS on the market now! EASILLY concealed under a jacket, sure they have tremendous recoil, but this weapon could very well be used as a cop-killer, I bet many "Krinkov" AKS-74U style weapons are legalized too.

Personally, with the AWB lifted, I see no reason for the SS190 ammo being banned. and remember, a cop doesn't wear body armor on his head...

AND, these weapons will ALWAYS be available on the black market, there is no stopping that.

Even the ammo is being reproduced and sold over the internet so getting a hold on SS190 ammo isn't even that hard anymore.

High recoil, nigh impossible to aim weapons like the Deagle could be concerning, if they weren't pieces of absolute junk. The smaller SMGs/ assault rifles are a concern, but they are fairly uncommon. You can't draw them as fast as a pistol, they're hard to control and fire with one hand.

You can simply shove a Five Seven into your waistband, you can fire it one handed without much trouble, and it's a military grade weapon. With standard ammo being AP, we need to make these as hard to get as possible.

DE

If someone really wanted to kill an armed officer, they could do it with or without this gun. I think it should be put or left, in the class three zone with full auto arms. If one is permitted to purchase those guns, there is no reason they cant have this one...

I personally love guns , i think that it isnt right that because some people are psychotic, us sane and responsible citizens lose OUR RIGHTS. It isnt up to some type of government to tell me what to own or not to own. If i want it bad enough, im going to have it (whatever it may be, im not just talking about this case...) with or without their "permission."

And who knows, maybe someday those armored officers wont be on your side, and its that weapon that saves you and possibly your family. You shouldnt trust anyone...

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Contrary to the beliefs of many uninformed non-Americans (and, I am sorry to say, Americans as well) guns are not about hunting, not about shooting sports, and not about waving around as a penis-substitute.

Indeed, the right to train and organize possibly anti-government militias is enshrined explicitly in the Constiution itself. Not to trap bears and hunt buffalo, but to keep power in the hands of the public.

Tho I do think a certain amount of the reasoning was also to repell native attacks and that it was also thought that the militias would be part and parcel of teh nationalized defense plan. If the brits invade pennsyvlannia, the popular militias fight while the US Army is raised.

[This means, quite simply, weapons parity with them

I don't know about that, I don't think I'd trust the general public to cultivate anthrax and mass produce VX gas, let alone field it properly. What if those waco/ruby ridge types let something like that loose? Certainly, its reasonable to restrict lots of weapons that are purely used on the strategic scale of military operations from the public. I'd have to think that cop killer bullets and guns should require some regulation. Nevertheless, when a cop is killed with these guns, its almost never by a registered owner with a legal gun, or even an NRA member.

DeusEx
The issue is that this pistol is concealable, small, and its standard ammunition can go right through an officer's vest

Its, in a sense, sort of like the "Wild West'. The organized territories didn't have wide sweeping gun control laws, and that was necessary (tho perhaps not sufficient) for widespread gun violence. And even those places would put 'no gun' ordanances in the towns.

But, then again, if you are a member of your county's militia and meet once a month to drill and train, well, you probably aren't much of a criminal threat.

Then again, I'm not so sure if it'd be a good idea to have militias organized in Harlem, Shaolin and the Boogie Down Bronx.

Hmmm, you sound like some deluded redneck - PS. With a small penis

You will surely receive a warning for this, I am tempted to let a mod know.

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo

Hmmm, you sound like some deluded redneck - PS. With a small penis

You will surely receive a warning for this, I am tempted to let a mod know.

OK, well I thought this forum was about denying ignorance ( and the ignorant ). If you can't speak the truth what is the point ? and yes I stand by what I say, I'm just glad that looney is over there and not here.

I am very progun but this weapon gives me pause. I have conflicating emotions regarding this weapon. On one hand I believe that a practical form of parity should be maintained between the citizenry and the potential forces of tyranny on the other I believe the forces of justice in America should be given every strength against the forces of chaos that can plague our society.

This gun is designed to fire armor piercing ammo but then again any gun can fire an armor piercing bullet. The only thing that prevents this is the fact that armor piercing bullets are strictly controlled in America so logically by extension we can assume that the ammunition for this weapon will controlled just as rigorously. As a result at this time I am inclined to believe this weapon should be legal for ownership by the citizenry because without its AP ammo its no different then any other low caliber pistol available for sale in America.

Realistically I do see this gun being banned for the simple fact that it is easily vilifiable much like "assault rifles" are. I think the banning of this gun would be a setback for gun ownership in America because it is only a small leap from this weapon to more accepted high power pistols legalluy available to the citizenry .

My question is should there be laws banning the civilian ownership of this gun in America?

The question should be do guns cause more crime then they prevent?
A GUNMAN who opened fire at a US church service, killing seven people before taking his own life, may have been angry about an earlier sermon, it emerged today.
The killer, who also wounded four others at the Living Church of God service, has been identified by police as 44-year-old Terry Ratzmann, of New Berlin, Wisconsin.

Police said Ratzmann attended the church, which has met regularly at the Sheraton Hotel in Brookfield, 16km west of Milwaukee, for several years.

It was during a church gathering in a meeting room at the hotel that Ratzmann, a computer programmer who was about to lose his job, opened fire yesterday (AEDT).

source

The main argument used seems to be that a gun will give an old lady a chance against a bigger and more fit attacker. Well in the above example guns didnt save anyone the fact is that if the attacker didnt have acces to a gun he couldnt have shot those people.

As for arming the population the pro gun "lobby" in America will always hide behind the 2nd amendment and is it any wonder they could own a nuclear sub or a anti tank missile if they so choose.

What I dont understand is how certain guns can be outlawed in a America in the first place given that the 2nd amendmen protecs the population right to "bear arms" I dont argee with widespread gun owership to prevent crime but America seems to be struck with half baked measures.

Another argument for an armed population is the fact that it would provide a means of fighting any countrie that has invaded the USA.
Well heres the problem hand guns arent enough to destory tanks bombers e.t.c and the weapons that would be needed arent the hands of the local population.

As for the FN five seven weather or not it kills cops is illrevlant because if you belvie the pro gun "lobby" its there born right to carry arms. Since the law dosnt say what arms are people can legally own a tank if they want to rightfully or wrongfully it dosnt matter if the tank can kill cops, destroy cars,homes and other public/private property.

If you question if a gun should be owned by the population you are questioning your own beliefs something you shouldnt have to do.

[edit on 15-3-2005 by xpert11]

Personally I don't think the round is that powerful, and I don't see any reason to make the gun that fires it illegal. Two reasons.

1.) As already stated, if someone wants to kill an officer, this particular gun isn't going to make that possible if it wasn't already. Most well trained people aim for the head anyway, especially when attacking a prone target. A double-tap to the chest with a piddly 9mm will put all but the biggest cop on the ground with a hell of a tummy ache, if the criminal wants to finish them off, it's quite easily accomplished. The cops don't often let criminals get the drop on them like this though.

2.) You can buy a fifty dollar tomahawk that will chop a tactical helmet in half, so the need for a gun at all is dubiously proven. There are as many ways to kill a person as you can imagine. This gun isn't going to shift the balance of power. A shank, a garrot, a playing card, all these are deadly weapons, but banning them doesn't make any sense does it? They defeat vests, but they're legal. It's pick and choose, and arbitrary laws piss me off.

By the way, Rogue1, I dropped a complaint for the mods to read. You shouldn't insult someone's package, bad form. Stick to the discussion, don't take the easy way out.