It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should the FN Five seveN be legal for civilian ownership?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
The usual lack of ATS firearms knowledge comes howling blindly out of the mist.

Firstly, there are any number of "pistols" offering superior ballistic vest penetration capabilities to the FiveSeven, if only because short barrelled ARs and AKs with no stock are legally defined as pistols, and very small they can be too. Secondly, these guns are not available with the ammunition required to make them such outrageous cop killers, and finally, in spite of being available at practically every gunshop or gunshow I have visited for several years now, exactly no police officers have been killed by one.

A non-issue if there ever was one.




posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot


ALL TRUE RIFLE ROUNDS ARE "ARMOR PIERCING"! The only exception would be the .22 LR

Get that through your thick heads. Kevlar does *NOT* stop rifle rounds. Never has, and most probably never will. Trauma plates DO NOT stop rifle rounds (unless you stack multiple trauma plates with multiple vests).



Aye, you're right there. The lowest level of armour to offer any realistic protection from a rifle round is NIJ Level IV, which is heavy, bulky and ridgid. It isn't like kevlar at all. It is basically a ceramic armour plate.

7.62x39, 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO etc will all happily motor through two level III vests and whatever/whoever is in the middle.

From what I understand the Five Seven is legal, but the armour piercing ammo available for it is not. The standard stuff is pretty puny. To be honest I don't see the reason for anyone without criminal intent wanting to own this pistol. The vast majority of civillian shootings don't involve body armour, and the round is a very poor performer against unarmoured targets. That rules out self-defence (the biggest cited reason for owning a pistol in the US).

The weapon really is only of any use against an armoured target (assuming you have the appropriate ammo). This suggests an offensive action against targets who are routinely armoured. The largest group of people in civilian life who wear body armour are the police. Ergo the ownership of this pistol would suggest that the individual owning it plans to use it against the police.

This is a very specialised pistol designed for one purpose. I ask - who would want this pistol for other reasons?



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaddyInf
This is a very specialised pistol designed for one purpose. I ask - who would want this pistol for other reasons?


The same people who want a Barrett .50BMG semi-auto, or the same people who go to the trouble of getting a Class III permit so they can own and shoot fully automatic weapons. We call them collectors or enthusiasts, I'm sure the Europeans prefer a different word.

If we were required to justify every single firearms purchase, we'd end up like the UK, that's why it's in the Bill of Rights, and that's why we still have our guns.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by Retseh]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh

Originally posted by PaddyInf
This is a very specialised pistol designed for one purpose. I ask - who would want this pistol for other reasons?


The same people who want a Barrett .50BMG semi-auto, or the same people who go to the trouble of getting a Class III permit so they can own and shoot fully automatic weapons. We call them collectors or enthusiasts, I'm sure the Europeans prefer a different word.


The weapon is fully available, and it's your money. I just fail to see the attraction of paying an extortionate amount of money for a pistol that offers no real practical applications other than unlawful ones. I also do not believe that the vast majority of people buying this pistol will be doing so as "collectors".

Perhaps I'm wrong (and I hope I am), but I feel that there are lots of individuals who are out there buying firearms as a status symbol and/or with a view to commiting crime. This pistol presents an opportunity to make killing a police officer easier. In a practical world that is what this pistol is most suited to.


If we were required to justify every single firearms purchase, we'd end up like the UK, that's why it's in the Bill of Rights, and that's why we still have our guns.


Hey I'm as big a believer in the second as anyone, but my point is it's hard to justify owning this pistol under the clause of self defence as implied under the second amendment. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be allowed to buy this weapon, but I am saying that it's practical applications are realistically limited to essentially unlawful actions. It's certainly not "necessary to the security of a free state."

I don't want to get into a debate over the second amendment here (there are already too many kicking around), but I do feel that it is a poor excuse for wanting to own this pistol.

Do I think that you should be able to own it? - Yes. I think that we should all be allowed to buy whatever firearms we want as free people.

Do I think that it is justifyable under the clause of self defence or the second ammendment? - No. It has no practical applications for civillians outside unlawful ones and is not condusive for self defence.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaddyInf
The weapon is fully available, and it's your money. I just fail to see the attraction of paying an extortionate amount of money for a pistol that offers no real practical applications other than unlawful ones. I also do not believe that the vast majority of people buying this pistol will be doing so as "collectors".


As has already been stated, the armor piercing capabilities of this pistol have been neutered by virtue of its AP ammo having been banned from sale, in fact, the standard Czech 7.62 x 25mm ammo fired out of the widely available (and incredibly cheap) CZ-52 offers ballistic vest penetrating capability at least equal to the FiveSeven without its specialized AP ammo. So the capability being discussed here simply does not exist, the BATF spent a lot of time and money making sure that was the case.

Firearms ownership in the US is not dependent on showing a justifiable "practical application", something that is a recognized tactic of gun grabbers the world over, "Well just WHY do you need that gun sir?", if we were to apply that same logic to car owners, you would never see a sports car in private ownership, after all, what practical application does a car have that is capable of doing 200mph.

The fact that the discussion relating to this particular weapon is a non-issue aside - if you support RKBA as you indicate, you have to support it completely, because those who oppose it, oppose it completely.

If you start down the road of banning guns because of what someone "might" do with it, then that process would never stop until you ban everything, because every firearm is inherently dangerous, to attempt to separate out those that are somehow "safe" is an exercise in futility.

Take your own country as an example, the capitulation on semi automatic firearms was followed by capitulation on pistols. I hear that they are now trying to ban replica pistols and air rifles, after all, what practical purpose does a replica have, right? other than perhaps its use in a crime as an imitation weapon, right?

Belief in the right to own firearms is a mindset, either you have it or you don't, there is no middle ground, appeasement never works.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I'm talking about justification from a personal perspective. Believe it or not I have other things to spend my hard earned money on. As I stated, if you want to buy the weapon then crack on. I just don't understand how someone can justify (personally) the ownership of the pistol.

Can it be used for self defence - Not really. There are so many cheaper and much more effective alternatives out there it beggers belief.

Does it have exceptional accuracy - Not really, certainly no more than any of a hundred other semis at a cheaper price.

I already stated that gun ownership should be a personal thing that shouldn't be controlled. I agree with you on that one. However I'm a practical sort of person and I see no practical application for this pistol. That is my point. If I buy a pistol I want one that I will have a use for. The only use this pistol has is to penetrate armour, and it can't even do that because the appropriate ammunition isn't available, so what's the point?

The "Because I have the right to" argument is a bit weak. I have the right to break dance my way up my local high street while whistling The Sash if I want to, but that doesn't mean that I go out and do it.

Edited to add - Where I'm from we do still have the right to buy handguns. N. Ireland was exempt from the handgun ban as we have our own firearms legislation. I myself own a Walther P5C that I aquired from my current employer. I also own 2 rifles and a shotgun. If I wanted one of these pistol I could happily get one on my ticket. I just don't see why anyone would want to.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by PaddyInf]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I see you're from a military background, and "The Sash" was an interesting comment too, perhaps that's why you seem so obsessed with firearms having to have some type of practical application.

A shooting buddy of mine sold 80 of his firearms recently, that's right 80, many hundreds of thousands of americans collect unique or unusual pistols for the sheer pleasure of it, the mechanical complexity and engineering uniqueness of some weapons is fascinating to many, and the FiveSeven falls right in that category. At least now you understand that this pistol offers no more risk than your average handgun, you appear to be suporting the right of individuals to own one.

On a side issue, criminals are now breaking into homes wearing bullet resistant vests, which are also legal to own here. Are you still so certain that there is no practical application for an armor piercing handgun round?



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
I see you're from a military background, and "The Sash" was an interesting comment too, perhaps that's why you seem so obsessed with firearms having to have some type of practical application.


I'm like this for most things in life, though I do have my vices (you should see my mess bill). I grew up on the Shankill in the 70s/80s. My dad worked in a warehouse. There wasn't much money about. If something didn't have a practical use, then you didn't waste the bread money on it. I guess the lesson stuck.


On a side issue, criminals are now breaking into homes wearing bullet resistant vests, which are also legal to own here. Are you still so certain that there is no practical application for an armor piercing handgun round?


I'll bet that most of the crims aren't wearing them though, and the round is pretty feeble against unarmoured targets. There would be more chance of encountering a house breaker without body armour than with. In this scenario I'd rather have a decent calibre (9mm plus) and good shot placement.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by PaddyInf
...This is a very specialised pistol designed for one purpose. I ask - who would want this pistol for other reasons?


My nephew. For the exact same reason he has about 20 different swords, and probably 100 different knives. Because he can!

Or, as a friend answered my son when asked "Why do you carry a gun?"
1) For self defense
2) For protection against a tyrannical government
3) In case of attack by killer mutant zombies.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
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.


As a New Yorker with a pistol permit, to me, easy access means going to NYC with $1,000 to get this gun off-permit and some rounds.

To me, restricted access means following the procedures outlined by NYS code.

Now who really suffers here? I have friends in the force in New York and Florida and relatives in the FBI. Regardless, I've got to go with Off_the_street on this one. As he probably knows, you've got gangs wearing armor nowadays. What's your .45 going to do against an armored intruder if you shoot center-mass? Probably nothing.

As for your argument about falling into criminal hands through theft, well, if you're a gunowner and your weapon is stolen, you should lose your remaining weapons until you can prove that (a) your stolen gun was locked up and the whole safe was stolen and (b) any remaining guns are secured properly. Carelessness stimulates the black market and gives anti-gun fanatics like the Brady organization all the ammo they need.

I truly think we need stricter laws that punish carelessness in gun ownership.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   


The weapon is fully available, and it's your money. I just fail to see the attraction of paying an extortionate amount of money for a pistol that offers no real practical applications other than unlawful ones. I also do not believe that the vast majority of people buying this pistol will be doing so as "collectors".


I was thinking of buying one of these as a beginner pistol, mainly for target shooting. In many ways it is ideal for a beginner - small caliber, not terribly powerful (i.e. low recoil), reasonably accurate. I have to admit it's basically an expensive .22 magnum, but I guess I consider it to be more "exotic" and therefore more fun than a .22. Not exactly the most rational excuse for wasting my money on one, but people don't always think rationally.


The Brady folks are picking on this gun simply because it stands out from the crowd. If they started calling .357 magnums "cop-killers", they wouldn't be able to gain any ground because there are too many .357 magnums out there. It's easier and more convenient for them to bully this one company (FN) and their unique 5.7x45mm cartridge.

Calling the Five-seveN a "cop killer" is an outrageous absurdity. Shouldn't we need, as an absolute minimum, one documented case of a LEO being killed by a shot from a Five-seveN before we start calling it a "cop killer"? Those who wish to avoid sounding completely ignorant and silly should probably stop using this term.

I know some people fear that this gun poses a threat to police officers, but reality does not seem to agree. People frequently have irrational fears of things. Some are way more afraid of spiders than they have reason to be. Again, people don't always think rationally.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by PaddyInf
...This is a very specialised pistol designed for one purpose. I ask - who would want this pistol for other reasons?


My nephew. For the exact same reason he has about 20 different swords, and probably 100 different knives. Because he can!


As I said above, "because I can" always seems to be a poor excuse to me. There are many things you don't do though you can, usually because they make no sense. This is how I view the purchase of this pistol.

Talking about taking down criminals wearing body armour make little sense either. Yes the use of armour is on the increase, but is still small in comparrison to those who don't (i.e. most). As the pistol is fairly rubbish against unarmoured targets, then carrying this pistol for self defence is a taking a big chance. You risk being confronted by a target with a poor performing weapon. That's assuming you can get the AP ammo anyway (which most can't). Without that the pistol is an even poorer performer.

As for buying this weapon as a beginners target pistol, well that's up to you. I'd personally rather spend a fifth of the price on a .22LR with much cheaper that I can just plink away with to get my eye in.

As withneverything in life the choice is your own.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
www.bradycampaign.org...

Q: When did the Five-SeveN first become available to civilians in the US?

A: FN Herstal debuted the gun and ammunition for sale to civilians in 2004.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Is the gun legal? Under federal law, this gun, and its ammunition, is legal.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Look, if you ban this firearm all thats going to happen is in the months before the ban everyone is going to go out and buy one just because its still "legal" at that point. Your better off making it a class 3 firearm along with the ammo. That way theres no uprising and cops will be a little safer. I have many cop friends and i might be one in a few years my self.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Disclaimer: Im from the USA, and this is directed to others in the USA

Ok, here is the deal people. You need to do a simple google search before you post something. I have seen lots of posts that just seem to be complete opinion or completely wrong on facts. Here is what it is.
The FS has 5 models
The FS fires 5.7x28mm rounds.. basicly the .223 from my old m4 but with a shorter casing.
The rounds that the military and that are designed to be armor peircing ect, are not for sale to civilians, and not even for sale to the military or LE unless in bulk.
The five seven is unique in that it has one of the longest distances of reliable accuracy for a pistol, about 200m! (that makes it awesome)
It can hold 10 or 20 round magazines! (awesome for a pistol)


Now for my military opinion...
The FS is an all around awesome pistol, and as a matter of fact was the main competitor in my choice of my next pistol, vs a p220 combat.
Its versitale, rugged, has high capacity, is lightweight, and is highly accurate.
The biggest downside is the lack of production of the rounds themselves, in case of emergency it would be very easy to find the rounds in shortage. But that can be over come by local armorers that are able to make their own, and by bulk stocking up.
There are 1000's of pistols, shotguns, and rifles that can be used to kill.
If someone wants to kill a cop, they will, with or without this weapon!
Cops dont wear lvl 3 armor hardly ever! just about anything will penetrate undercover lvl 1 or 2 armor, it is a logical fallacy that because someone could possibly get AP rounds, that they will be encouraged to kill cops ect. The ONLY issue here is that it is a pistol! Its easier to conceal, thats the only difference between this and my M4. Sigh at people on ATS calling for a ban on any gun. Another logical fallacy is that if you ban a gun it protects people. and here is my final point..

IF YOU BAN A GUN, CRIMINALS WILL STILL GET THEIR HANDS ON IT! CRIMINALS DONT ABIDE BY LAWS! THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY DENIED THE GUN ARE THE TRULY LAW ABIDING CITIZENS! THE ONES WHO WOULDNT DO ANYTHING BAD WITH IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaddyInf

As for buying this weapon as a beginners target pistol, well that's up to you. I'd personally rather spend a fifth of the price on a .22LR with much cheaper that I can just plink away with to get my eye in.

As with everything in life the choice is your own.


Except in your case the choice isn't for you, because you can't buy a .22LR pistol, your government made that choice for you.

And that's the whole point.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh

Originally posted by PaddyInf

As for buying this weapon as a beginners target pistol, well that's up to you. I'd personally rather spend a fifth of the price on a .22LR with much cheaper that I can just plink away with to get my eye in.

As with everything in life the choice is your own.


Except in your case the choice isn't for you, because you can't buy a .22LR pistol, your government made that choice for you.

And that's the whole point.


Wrong. I'm from N. Ireland where the ban on handguns didn't take place. We have our own firearms legislation that still allows for the legal ownership of handgunsI own a Walther P5C at the moment that I bought from the army when they were downsizing the R. Irish. A small number of pistols were offered to serving members for purchase. I got a P5C and a 9mm Browning which I customised and sold to a mate.

You seem to have the impression that I'm anti-gun or something. I'm not. I believe that people should have the choice of owning whatever they wish. My point is that I don't see any practical reason for owning the pistol.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by PaddyInf]



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Seeing how the recent US election went, I purchased one of the FiveSevens last week - nicely made - haven't even cleaned the factory grease off it yet.

Preemptively, I also made several other purchases of firearms accessories (large cap magazines, folding stocks) that Pelosi/Schumer et al might want to ban. I would suggest that others here in the US do the same.

Regarding "stopping power" and the whole AP hysteria - realize that the flak vests only make it more difficult for rounds to penetrate - at some point bullets will penetrate. I think very few - if any - vests out there will block a reasonably hot .308 FMJ round - certainly not a vest that is also practical to wear.

My background is military - and I have two national championship pistol shooting medals - gold and silver - so count me among the better trained and qualified. Regardless, there's no reason anyone not explicitly barred from possessing firearms should not be able to get an FN FiveSeven - that's both childish and elitist at the same time.

With a .308 bolt-action rifle, I can cut through just about any flak gear on the market - not that I would. With a hacksaw I can take the barrel and stock down to concealable lengths - again, not that I would - and presto, I have a "cop killer" weapon of sorts. It'll hurt your wrist to fire it, but hey, all in a day's work for the evil-doer.

While staying with handguns, there are probably .44 Mag loads out there that I can put in my Silhouette that'll cut through just about anything - again, not that I would.

It's not about the weapons - it's about the people, silly. Can we just act like adults?

Since Obama/Pelosi/Schumer et cohortes aren't likely to be as mature - support the economy and go to your local gun show ASAP!



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by PaddyInf
 


Kinda hard to justify owning an AR 15 too. I still am glad I have mine. The very idea that these pistols will be bought by crazed cop killers is laughable. I would imagine if one wanted to kill a police officer there are a number of easier ways. Think aiming for the head, using a rifle, sawed of shotgun... I've seen these things at the gun shop and they are PRICEY. I just can't see a criminal buying one to go kill cops.



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
It would be fair to say any experienced advanced reloader knows how to make most handgun cartridges penetrate body armor... but to have a weapon like that available to anyone???? Why not just bring back the 'Devastator' and screw the high dollar pistols...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join