Keith and Rachel are OBSESSED with 'cop killer guns' tonight!

[onehandle]

Cop killer guns.

Cop killer guns.

Cop killer guns.

Oh, why oh why are they so obsessed?

[AndyA]

1. Why oh why would ANYONE need a gun with armor piercing bullets?

What legal reason could there possibly be for having such a thing? :eyes:

[emulatorloo]

4. And why would "Guns Galore" stock such a heinous weapon?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Its a gloried .22WMR, scarely heinous. Much less lethal than some presume

9mm etc are a much higher risk

[emulatorloo]

16. You are obviously educated about this. Curious, why are fedofficers describing it as "Cop Killer"

There must be some history there.

Thanks in advance.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. Ignorance, agendas, who knows?

[slackmaster]

96. They're simply quoting a term that is in common use because of propaganda

They use the term because people understand what it means. It doesn't mean they regard the guns as being intended or particulary suitable for killing law enforcement officers (which they are not).

[Tim01]

131. The history is this.

The military has access to actual steel core armor piercing rounds for this gun. So the gun is famous because it takes armor piercing ammo, was originally pushed as an armor piercing weapon, or CAN take armor piercing ammo.
The gun and this unique military bullet were envisioned as a handgun that could get through the body armor of a terrorist.
The gun is not special. The high speed steel military bullet is.

But the ammo you get at the gun store for this is just a lead bullet, and in this cartridge it is far far weaker than almost everything else out there.

Virtually ALL rifle bullets will go through cops body armor.

So if a person wanted to defeat the body armor of a cop they could buy one of these expensive guns, and then try to somehow find the specialty ammo to fit in the gun. Or they could buy just about ANY rifle would do it better.And rifles are easy to get.

[AtheistCrusader]

139. Because it's easy to lie.

That's all. It serves an agenda. No more, no less.

It would take 5 minutes for a JOURNALIST with any shred of integrity to check out these claims. They don't. And they never will.

[madinmaryland]

61. Scarcely heinous (I think that's what you meant) and much less lethal?

than what? a BB gun?

That's the biggest problem. Folks like you minimizing the risk of guns.

[X_Digger]

64. Less lethal than a whole slew of other guns..

32, 380, 9mm, 357, 38, 40, 45, 44 magnum.. all will create a larger hole in you, and with the high velocity of the 5.7, it's likely to go straight through you (which is actually less lethal).

[madinmaryland]

67. A hole through the head is a hole through the head....

Is this the gungeon?

[X_Digger]

68. Most shootings are center mass, for a reason. Larger target.

If I had to choose between being shot by a 45ACP or a 5.7, I'd choose 5.7 every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

eta: Last report I heard had Sgt Munley out of the hospital. Not likely if she had been shot with a larger caliber.

[madinmaryland]

70. Knock yourself out, kiddoe.

[SteveM]

148. To clear up a few misconceptions..

Self-defense experts argue that when firing at an attacker, you aim at the "center mass" of the body -- not only are there vital organs here, but the target is much larger than the head. They also recommend a suitable caliber (usually .38 and higher) with suitable bullet construction (bullets which open up and slow down). A .22 cartridge -- even a powerful one -- which pierces armor has none of the characteristics recommended.

Incidentally, the Ft. Hood shooter's other weapon (believed not to be fired) was a .357 magnum, a far more powerful self-defense weapon which, if loaded with suitable cartridges, can penetrate armor. In fact, there are MANY cartridges which can penetrate armor.

The main issue for the news, here, is how to resurrect a moribund gun-control "movement" by demonizing a particular weapon. In this manner, they hope to ban this particular weapon and thereby get some kind of scalp for the "movement." What they will probably accomplish is a spur in sales for this weapon-type. Frankly, most folks see little use for this gun except in its intended use: a small, easily-carried close quarters weapon for non-combat personnel who are overrun by armor-clad enemy. (The cartridge, in this case, is strictly for the military.) If the shooter got the gun & ammo off-base, he had no access to the AP type.

To ban this weapon makes sense if you wish to ban all handguns with AP capability. There are tens of millions of these out there, now.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

75. Pretty much

Some handguns are much more lethal than others. A torso hit with a large caliber is going to do serious damage, wherever it strikes. Small caliber weapons need to hit specific areas to do significant damage. The weapon in question is a small caliber.

[X_Digger]

59. Because it's a pistol like any other..

The 'Armor Piercing' (AP) refers to the ammunition not to the gun. There is AP ammunition available to military and law enforcement in many pistol calibers, but none to civilians.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Strawman...AP is not available to the public

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. He didn't need armored piercing bullets and if he had them he did so illegally.

[Hoopla Phil]

109. Then make it MORE illegal. We need another law! We must do SOMETHING!!

[951-Riverside]

28. Why do you need armor piercing bullets when you can just aim for the head?

[Lagomorph]

35. While armor piecing ammo is made for that gun...

it is only available through police or military channels. It is illegal for civilians (or even soldiers) to personally own it. The only ammo legally available for the FN57 is soft tip, which is designed NOT to penetrate armor.

[benEzra]

49. AP handgun ammo has been banned since 1986.

Anyone claiming otherwise is lying. The relevant law is Public Law 99-408; here's the cite:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:HR03132:@@@L&summ2=m&

With civilian ammunition, the 5.7x28mm won't penetrate any vest rated to stop a .357, and the 5.7 is considerably less lethal. (And with restricted AP ammunition, a .357 will penetrate anything a 5.7 will.)

[defendandprotect]

74. Bet the GOP's/NRA wants them . . . someone's making money on them . ..!!

And, basically this guy bought this weapon legally --

what were the signs of his derangement?

Could anyone have guessed?

Basically, better to keep guns from EVERYONE ... and not guess!

[eqfan592]

87. Nice logic.

Indeed, better to keep cars from EVERYONE, since we have no idea how people may drive. And how about COMPUTERS, because we don't know what they'll do with THEM either! ALL THIS GUESSING! What is this? A FREE SOCIETY??? You seriously disgust me, sir/madam.

[Hoopla Phil]

111. Speaking of making money off this. Have you seen what the GOP/Brady people

are saying? Sickening that they are politicizing this like they are.

[rl6214]

121. HOLEEEE SHIT

Then turn in your computer because we are going to eliminate all of our constitutional rights then.

[slackmaster]

95. Armor-piercing handgun ammunition is not legal for sale to civilians

Relax.

[Euromutt]

127. I can suggest some folks who did

From a thread a short while back came this story: http://www.salisburypost.com/Area/103109-shooting-on-Corriher-Grange-Road-deadmons

Friday's events started before 3:39 p.m. outside the Deadmons' home on Corriher Grange Road. Williams and Starks reportedly confronted John-Ross in or near the garage and dragged him by the collar to the house, where his father had gone to rest because of an aching back.
<...>
It's not clear exactly what happened inside the house, except that a struggle ensued with shots being fired by all the participants.
<...>
A Sheriff's Office report said when deputies arrived they found a wounded black male (Williams) in Deadmon's garage. He was wearing a black "costume" and a camouflage bullet-proof vest, the report said.

Emphasis mine. It's not only law enforcement wearing body armor these days, as attentive viewers of The Wire and people who remember the Binghamton, NY shooting already know.

But that's less than germane, because armor-piercing handgun ammunition is illegal for private citizens to possess. The SS190 armor-piercing ammunition that gives the FN Five-seveN its armor-defeating capability is only sold to governments (which rather obviates the point of owning one if you're not a government agency). But even so, all other things being equal, armor-piercing ammunition is less lethal than hollowpoints, the trade-off being that hollowpoints are less good at penetrating armor than FMJ ("ball") rounds, let alone AP ammo. The American troops in Mogadishu discovered this when they used their standard-issue AP ammunition (adopted with armored opponents in mind) against unarmored Somali irregulars. Basically, AP ammunition is like shooting someone with an icepick; unless you hit a vital organ, you're unlikely to inflict an (immediately) incapacitating wound.

[Tejas]

136. DRIVE-BY THUGS SHOOTING AT INNOCENTS COME TO MIND

AP works much better on car/Escalade doors.
Please, for the children, wake up at your earliest opportunity.

[shooter55]

146. yea

cuz gangbangers are always dropping $900 on a handgun and somehow finding a way to get ahold of Armor-Piercing rounds WHEN THEY'RE ALREADY ILLEGAL!!!! wtf

you show me a news story of gang-bangers using 5.7mm armor piercing rounds and I'll vote for Obama in 2012..

[emulatorloo]

2. Because the killer bought it at "Guns Galore", he was obviously looking for a gun that could pierce

armor.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. Then he found out he couldn't buy armored piercing bullets.

[emulatorloo]

17. Well he still managed to kill some people with the "regular" cartridges

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. There you have it.

[benEzra]

50. And most of those shot survived, because he used a centerfire .22.

Your point?

[AtheistCrusader]

140. Just like he could with pretty much any other pistol.

Makes very little difference, once you remove the scary 'armor piercing' lie, does't it?

[SteveM]

149. Guns don't pierce armor, bullets do. Sorry, couldn't resist. (nt)

[Captain Hilts]

3. Because there is no reason for private citizens to own them?

[Telly Savalas]

6. Sportsmen like to use them

to hunt deer wearing body armor.

[Hello_Kitty]

10. Ding ding ding!

Say, does my "right to bear arms" include ownership of a shoulder launched missile? How about a suitcase nuke? I mean, the Constitution doesn't specify what "arms" I can or cannot own. :shrug:

Oh yeah...there's that pesky "well-regulated militia" part...

[Captain Hilts]

29. Folks never read that "well-regulated militia" part, do they? I'll store a Tomahawk for a tax break

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. Your interpretation fortunately carries no weight.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

82. Why are you so obsessed with penis size? Odd that you only like big guns though. Project much.

[spin]

93. Let's examine that gun owners and penis size insult..

First let's look at the S$W Homepage for .357/38+P revolvers.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CatalogSearchResultView?beginIndex=0&langId=-1&attributeValue1=.357MAG%2F.38%2BP&storeId=10001&published=1&isFirearm=Y&catalogId=10001&pageSize=10&attributeValueType1=STRING&attributeValueOperator1=EQUAL&attributeName1=Caliber&resultType=2&viewTaskName=CatalogSearchResultView


The longest barrel I can find on the four pages of available revolvers in this caliber is 6.5 inches. That particular revolver is called a Model 27 - S&W Classic.

Smith & Wesson makes it possible for you to own a piece of history-in-the-making with these Classic revolvers. They're the finest new handguns possible with designs harkening back to the most famous and collectible guns that Smith & Wesson ever constructed. Each is based on a model known for legendary performance then enhanced with modern advantages. They're the timeless best of both worlds,­ Smith & Wesson Classics.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=67963&langId=-1&isFirearm=Y

I did find a couple of six inch revolvers, but the majority were five inches or less. Four inch revolvers seem to be very popular.

Now look at this chart showing penis length data. It shows that the highest percentage of male penises fall between five inches to seven inches. (note the source of this data is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_penis_size#Length



If male handgun owners were trying to compensate for their penis length, it would seem there would be far more long barreled revolvers made by S&W. Several years ago they stopped producing their eight and 3/8 inch barrels because so few sold.

Now rifles and shotguns have LONG barrels. If there were any truth to the theory that gun owners are trying to compensate for their penis length, men who own rifles and shotguns would prove the point.

Of course, the penis size insult fails to explain why many women own firearms. My daughter's a gun owner and in no way is she trying to compensate for the fact that she doesn't have a penis. She's a woman and damn proud of it. The majority of her female friends also own handguns. But then we live in north Florida and it's unusual to find anyone who doesn't own a firearm.

edited for mistake in title and to add a bit more

[SteveM]

101. That SHAPE! I can't forget that SHAPE! (nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

119. Someone doesn't like his opinion to be countered with fact. Whaaaah.

[paulsby]

42. because the right belongs to the people

not the "well regulated militia"

try actually READING the 2nd amendment

[Joe Fields]

44. What about the right to work in a safe environment?

The second amendment needs to be changed to protect us from the millions of gun nuts in this country. You heard me, GUN NUTS! Gun nuts, who live in fear of God knows what. It is these same "law abiding" gun nuts who go and commit multiple shootings.

I've never felt the need to arm myself for protection. I've lived in some pretty hairy places, too. My my, how did I ever survive for 53 years? Maybe because I THINK about what I do and when to do it.

[paulsby]

47. at least you are intellectually honest

you are correct. the 2nd amendment does NEED to be modified or else people like you will not be able to limit our civil rights.

iow, you implicitly accept that in fact the 2nd amendment does protect RKBA, since you admit it NEED to be changed

also, you invoked the need canard (tm) in the 2nd paragraph

how original

i don't NEED fire insurance.

i have it.

i don't NEED to know advanced life saving

i do

i don't NEED to carry a CPR mask with me

i do

i don't NEED to have food storage and water purification stuff in my house

i do

i don't NEED to teach my wife how to use a firearm

i did

i don't NEED to drive defensively

i do

i don't NEED to carry (off duty)

i do (sometimes) :)

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulsby]

54. name calling. how mature

i am not a survivalist . i don't have a bunker.

but extreme situations DO happen.

see new orlean

the risk of my house catching fire is less than 1 in 5,000

but i have fire insurance.

and you now invoke the fear canard.

i am not afraid of dying in my automobile.

but i wear my seatbelt to reduce risk of same, even though it's very unlikely.

i could not care less what you do or don't do.

this is america. freedom of choice.

also, i live near a DORMANT volcano. and an area that gets frequent flooding.

being prepared isn't being afraid. it's about empowering oneself and taking PERSONAL responsibility.

i can play yer game too

i guess you just don't believe in personal responsibility. have you toilet trained yet?

[Joe Fields]

60. I believe in responsibility. I choose not to live in fear.

But if it makes you happy, then by all means, go wallow in it.

and on edit; if it walks like a duck...and man, you sure are quacking.

[paulsby]

65. i choose not to live in fear, either. i also choose personal responsibility

and you don't

typical of a simpering fearful nannystater.

and note, you started the name calling ;p

[Joe Fields]

78. you have demonstrated that you definitely live in fear, AND

that you are a survivalist. the more you talk, the more obvious it becomes, and I have never met a more fearful people than survivalists.

As for personal responsibility, are you saying that, because I choose not to carry a weapon and that I choose not to live in fear of being robbed or gunned down that I'm irresponsible?

You need a checkup from the neck up, buddy.

[paulsby]

80. you have demonstrated that you have a 1st grade reading level

that you make false accusations, that you have no respect for personal choice, and that you have no respect for the constitution

that's truly sad

[eqfan592]

90. You mistaking "being prepared" for "living in fear."

And yes, you are irresponsible for doing so. But that's OK. It seems like "be prepared" is somehow the worst thing ever to a lot of liberals these days. So tell me, do you refuse to wear your seat belt? How about walk when the sign says don't walk? Because if you don't do either of these things, then your hypocrisy is obvious.

[PavePusher]

112. "Neener, neener, neener"?! Really?!

And you wonder why people don't take you seriously?

[backwoodsbob]

132. I own LOTS of guns

does that make me a survivalist?

[shooter55]

144. No, you're just a sheep...

completely dependent and confident that .gov will cater to your every need in an emergency, you know, like all those Obama supporters at the astrodome after Katrina... Just be patient, FEMA will arrive with clean drinking water within 2 weeks, dumbass....

[SteveM]

150. Wow. They supported Obama before he announced. Who was in office, then?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

83. He's a police officer but please continue to display your bigotry.

[eqfan592]

89. What exactly is the deal with liberals hating people who are prepared??

How many natural disasters have you been through? Hell, have you even had to go through a house fire? Being prepared means you have a better chance of being able to survive should things like clean water and electricity not be available for extended periods of time. Maybe you don't live in an area where this is a concern (doubtful though, as natural disasters can happen just about everywhere), but I promise you this. If one were to occur in your area, suddenly those crazy "survivalists" will be your best damn friends while FEMA trips over it's own dick trying to help out those of you who failed to prepare in even the most basic fashion.

[SteveM]

104. You'd think Katrina never happened, or the four hurricans in Florida ...

the preceding year. My folks in Gainesville stored gallon jugs of water both for drinking and flushing water. My brother has a propane generator and a Ford 6 cylinder engine to generate power. We have guns, but they were down on the list to other common sense "survivalist" measures.

[Euromutt]

128. *Certain* liberals, anyway

I'm fairly certain there are quite a few liberals in the neck of the woods that paulsby and I inhabit (I should say "other liberals," since paulsby and I are) who are prepared for natural and other disasters, because they, like us, remember the storm three years ago that knocked out power over a wide area of Puget Sound. In many areas, it took more than two weeks to restore power. And there was one three years before that that knocked out power in quite a few places. I guess we're just about due for another.
I live on high ground, but the downtown area of the city I live in is currently being threatened by flooding if only a few things go wrong. Oh yeah, and there's a dormant volcano, to wit Mount Rainier. It's actually not so much the volcano itself that's worrisome, as what the presence of a volcano signifies, namely a subduction zone; in other words, where you find volcanoes, you get earthquakes.

I'm at least somewhat prepared, in that I have a bit more than the 72 hours' emergency supplies that the American Red Cross recommends, though we know what a bunch of reactionary freepers the American Red Cross are, right?

[eqfan592]

134. Sorry, I should have qualified my statement.

Hell, I'm a "liberal" (though I do prefer progressive) and I'm not far off from you and paulsby. :)

Though I was a member of a Red Cross disaster action team for a while a few years ago. I guess after being a member of such a freeper organization, maybe I need to turn in my progressive/liberal card? ;)

[taurus145]

147. Survivalist?

I live in tornado country and we're also poised for the 200 year quake on the New Madrid. Food and water for several weeks are on hand. It surely came in handy earlier this year when the ice storm hit and we were without power for 3 weeks.

generator - check
propane and kerosene for lanterns and cooking - check
all the things that go with them - check
And yes, guns and ammunition, too. Bambi looks very nice in my skillet.

[SteveM]

103. He stores fresh water and he's a survivalist. Good grief (nt)

[PavePusher]

110. You don't want to survive?!

Good luck with that....

Seriously, some people need professional help. Get some.

[SteveM]

102. Man, sounds like you live in fear, guns or no...

I don't live in fear (even at 61), I sleep well, have good conversations, worry about health care and retirement, but nothing out of the ordinary. And I have a .357 by the bed.

You have so see that having a gun for the rare possibility of self-protection is a reasonable response to the possibility of attack, just as house insurance is in response to the (more probable) possibility my house will burn down.

Let's not get into a pissing contest about who is more fearful; it's just unmanly.

[Taitertots]

117. How did you survive?

You are just lucky enough to not be in the portion of the population that have been victims of crime.

I guess it IS better to be lucky than good.

[rl6214]

123. Gun nuts?

Can you engage in a discussion without attempting to insult a huge portion of our populace? Get over the NEED to insult then see if you can get back in the discussion with some real facts.

[cark]

46. Well Regulated

The plainest reading and a small study of constitutional history shows that the founders wanted individuals to own guns. They didn't protect them to ensure you could go deer hunting either. The felt this was an essential right and is one of the few actually listed and is no different than your right to free speech. You couldn't have effective militias if you don't have an armed populace. Just think how much easier it would be to take Afghanistan if the citizens didn't own guns. This is the reason it is in our constitution.

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

[SteveM]

100. See my reponse above (nt)

[SteveM]

99. Some corrections in order...

Your right to keep and bear arms refers to "arms" which at the time and even now refers to a gun which is designed to be carried in one or both hands, hence the term fire "arms." It was not intended (nor does the expression arms allow for) the unrestricted ownership of other weapons and ordnance. As a matter of fact, one can (and some do) own tanks, field pieces (cannons), machine guns (complete with plexiglass turrets), and jet fighters, but they ARE subject to heavy restriction as they fall from without the Second Amendment. Specificity with regards "arms" is greater in the Constitution than the specificity of "press" (First Amendment). This is fortunate as you would not be able to communicate your comment to me and I would not be able to answer.

"Well-regulated" in the terms of the day meant only that one in the militia was to report when called carrying an "arm" suitable for the day, and know how to use it. The term well-regulated was quite limited, and the clause was not operative. "...the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed" (my emphasis) is the operative portion of the Amendment.

We hear a lot of stuff about exotic weapons one can own with Constitutional protection. That is not the case.

[rl6214]

122. Do a little research and find out

what 'well regulated' really means then se about getting back in the discussion.

[Euromutt]

129. Certain weapons are covered by international arms limitation treaties

That includes things like tanks, artillery pieces, combat aircraft, missiles and NBC weapons. Of course, most of items cannot be borne by a single person. Suitcase nukes are a fiction, a story traceable to one source, the late Alexander Lebed, who couldn't keep his own story straight. Even man-portable missile launchers aren't really man-portable once you factor in reloads, not to mention the steady supply of rechargeable batteries you need to keep the launcher working.

Have you ever handled a Stinger missile launcher? I have, or at least, I've handled the training models and made a few simulated kills. The Stinger has a passive infrared seeker head, and to enable it to do that, the seeker head has to be chilled to below freezing while it's searching for targets. That takes a lot of power, which is supplied by a rechargeable battery approximately the size of a 28 oz. can of tomatoes, only rther heavier. The battery starts losing charge the moment you slot it into the launcher, so you have to wait until an aircraft has been sighted and positively identified as hostile before you slot it in. Even then, you have only a limited amount of time (less than 20 seconds) to acquire and lock onto the target and fire before the battery runs out of charge. If you attempt to acquire a target, but don't shoot, you need to replace the battery. So you need a steady supply of batteries, and a reliable power supply to keep them charged. So to remain operational, a Stinger team really needs a vehicle, by which I mean a truck. Oh, yeah, note I said "teams"; a Stinger really needs two men to be employed effectively, namely the operator and a spotter to identify and designate targets. The Stinger is not an individual weapon, something that one man can bear and use.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. The gun or the bullets.

[derby378]

138. Says who?

Honestly, I should buy one of those FN Five-Seven handguns just to piss you off. But I can think of much better reasons such as reliability, weight, ballistics, etc.

There's no such thing as a "perfect" pistol. Basically, you compare pistol models and calibers and determine which one is right for you. I might be happier with a .40-caliber from Smith & Wesson than with the FN, but then again, maybe not.

Chill, already.

[baldguy]

5. Whenever there's a tragedy, reasonable people look to see how it could've been prevented.

Hasan knew what kind of weapons he needed - and he was able to buy them legally. Reasonable people would think "perhaps the law should be changed".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Its really not all that different that many other pistols including Glocks

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. And reasonable people will come to different conclusions.

[PavePusher]

113. Reasonable people would think "What actions can I take to defend myself...

until emergency response personnel show up".

[Pavulon]

120. The one that makes murder illegal, the one that makes the ingredients to TATP

legal to buy? I am confused how a law is going to stop a person intending to murder?

[AtheistCrusader]

141. If you were even PRETENDING to look for the truth, you'd have seen through the cop killer lie

already.

But you haven't. Because you aren't looking for how it could have been prevented. You aren't looking for the truth.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Yeah, the mid-90's called.

They want their boogeyman back.

[onehandle]

20. Yes. Nobody has been killed by cop killer anything since the mid-90s.

:eyes:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. I've never heard of a cop killer anything. What is it?

[anonymous171]

76. I know. We sacrificed 1994 for those people and look where that got us

The anti-gun folks are on the same side as the GOP as far as I'm concerned.

[SteveM]

105. I want my bogey back! WAH!

[RedCloud]

19. Why would a Virginian raised on love of guns and God need one?

Surely the constant exposure to the all mighty and the NRA in Va. would have made all from that state safe citizens.

[-..__...]

21. Because they're ignorant pinheads...

without the slightest clue about what they're talking about.

[Cleita]

25. Do you even watch?

If they don't have a clue, shouldn't you be checking their sources? I don't think you do.

[-..__...]

26. Uhmmm, no....

as journalists, they're the ones that should be checking their sources.

[Cleita]

27. Well, maybe that's why all the garbage channels like FOX, CNN et. al.

make so much sense to you. They can lie any way they want and you won't check them out. That is really stupid.

If you really feel Keith and Rachel have made a mistake, call, email, or however you communicate, telling them what you think. Explain your position and why you think they are wrong and most likely they will look into it and make a correction on their show. If you don't, then I know you are full of it.
Even REAL journalists need to be corrected at times. The good ones will accept your opinion and look into it.

[-..__...]

41. Getting the facts wrong is one thing.

Attaching a term meant to elicit an emotional response based on ignorances is another.

[Cleita]

43. Like I said, tell them and while you are at it tell the rest of them.

You should never accept anything as truth, without checking it out, even if your mother told you.

So now you noticed something you don't feel is factual. Challenge them! Tell them you think they are wrong.

[AtheistCrusader]

142. It's not a matter of 'thinking' they are wrong.

We know. Period. It is clear that neither 'journalist' spent as much as 5 minutes researching the issue.

[spin]

97. None of the 24/7 news channels have any technical knowledge about firearms...

They all have hired talking heads who are supposed to be experts on many different subjects such as finance, medical topics, warfare, etc.

None have or probably ever will have a resident talking head who knows which end of a gun the bullet comes out.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. No need to check anything if they are using the term cop killer. That alone proves the ignorance.

[Cleita]

34. They said that the gun was known as the cop killer.

Evidently they got some expert to explain that to them and maybe that person was wrong. So if you feel they shouldn't have said that, make a phone call.

I doubt if Rachel or Keith do firearms. So if you feel they are wrong, confront them. You might even be invited on the show if you actually have anything informative to say.

Do try or STFU.

[benEzra]

51. That's what the gun-ban lobby calls it.

No U.S. police officer has ever been killed by one, though (AFAIK), and with civilian ammunition it won't penetrate any vest that a .357 won't.

[Cleita]

55. ...

So if this is being mislabeled, do approach k and r about it and get your side of the story there.

[benEzra]

58. If they call anybody with a Muslim name a "terrorist," I reserve the right to point out their error

whether or not I write to them first. I similarly reserve the right to point out that they are wrong about the gun.

The gun in question is a centerfire .22, incapable of penetrating body armor with civilian ammunition, that has AFAIK killed zero U.S. police officers.

[SteveM]

86. "Cop Killer" is a smear thing. Even the hoary old .30-30 (1894) was called that (nt)

[X_Digger]

63. Actually, Rachel 'does' firearms.. notice the difference between her & KO..

Rachel mentioned in an interview a while back that she used to take her NY producers to a gun range and make them shoot, just to shake them up.

Keith repeated the 'Cop Killer gun' meme, while Rachel said 'gun with so-called cop-killer ammunition'.

Neither were right (if the shooter bought the ammunition over-the-counter, then it was definitely not AP -Armor Piercing- ammunition, the only ammunition for the FN 5.7 that can defeat standard Police body armor) but Rachel was closer to the truth.

[Joe Fields]

48. Face it, you are completely obsessed about guns.

I knew a guy in Tulsa who was a lot like you. He went off the deep end.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

81. Another fine example of ignorance.

[SteveM]

88. Nothing like the smell of smear in the morning, heh?

Aren't you wading out beyond the buoys yourself?

[PavePusher]

114. Are you accusing us of being a harsh word away from...

building bombs to kill innocent people?

Go somewhere else and self-fornicate.

[rl6214]

124. Knowledgable=obsessed?

Your reasoning needs an adjustment. You are afraid of firearms and obsessed with eliminating them because of your fear.

[Common Sense Party]

57. "Cop killer." ABout as intelligent a phrase as "death panels"

and designed to stir up the same fear response in the amigdala.

[onehandle]

31. They said cop killer bullets too.

Happy?

[Cleita]

24. Huh? There was a lot more to their shows

that this. I think thou dost project too much.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Becuse that is where the story is GOING

[aikoaiko]

36. Did they really use that phrase?

I can't believe they'd result to that kind of fear mongering. :shrug:

[onehandle]

38. They said cop killer guns and bullets.

One of the guns used was some sort of high velocity weapon.

They had a military expert on the matter talk about it.

[benEzra]

53. 40-grain bullet at 1650 ft/sec.

A .357 can throw a 110-grain bullet that fast. 5.7x28mm is comparable to .22 Winchester magnum rimfire.

To get high velocity with a FiveSeven, you have to go down to teeny bullets (28-grain) which is even lighter than most .22LR loads.

[Kaleva]

62. Most deer rifles are high velocity weapons and they can kill cops.

[Cleita]

39. They didn't.

If you watch repeat videos or read the transcripts you will see that they were reporting what they felt was their best information at the time. They actually were very objective. There was no fear mongering. I think that if anyone wants to challenge them directly by calling the station, they might get equal time if either Keith or Rachel thinks they have something to say.

[SteveM]

91. The term "cop-killer" is a well-calculated fear-smear...

There's is a well-worn history of its use by gun-controllers -- especially when it can be (immediately) attached to some heinous event like a schoolyard spectacular, or Ft. Hood. I have a number of weapons for standard hunting and one for self-defense. They can be termed "copy killer" if by that definition you mean the bullet fired can penetrate most standard-issue vests worn by police. Many guns can do this. But the main point is the inflammatory nature of the term, which is rather meaningless for anything else BUT stirring up controversy and promoting an agenda.

Perhaps we should have a debate using "best information" and "objectivity" to discuss N________s and their propensity to violence and rape.

[taurus145]

151. Experts BAH!

I didn't see this particular "expert", bur he/she sounds like some other "experts" I saw concerning the Ft. Hood shooting.

Not one mentioned the high probability that two or more victims could be (and likely would be) wounded and/or killed by a single round in a crowded room. Unless a round hit center mass or a large bone, it's very possible and likely that some rounds passed through the first victim and hit a second. I got a "twofer" deer hunting. They were lined up perfectly. I actually didn't see the second deer standing directly behind the first. Same principle.

There's also the fact that some of us can shoot accurately and very quickly. I've no idea of Hasan's competency with handguns, but 2-3 rounds per second on target with semi-auto handguns is not uncommon. I've seen similar speed with revolvers. They just take longer to reload and hold fewer rounds.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. Oh, it got worse.

Maddow had some "expert" on and Rachel asked if one person could shoot more people. And the "expert" said no way. So they came to the "conclusion" that there were other shooters.

Kind of shit I'd expect from Glenn Beck.

[Cleita]

56. I bet you love Glenn Beck.

Funny enough I had no idea what that dude did until John Stewart made fun of him. I just read some of the crazy stuff he said in the past and it was enough for me. I can't imagine you would watch enough to compare.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

106. No, I can't stand freaks like Beck.

And that's why I'm disappointed in Maddow pulling the same sort of shit.

[X_Digger]

66. I caught that..

I was happy with Rachel for using 'so-called cop killer'.. then her 'expert' blows it by asserting there must've been friendly fire.

Cho in the VT massacre killed 31, wounded 23, with two handguns, and no 'friendly fire'. It's horrific, but there's no need to make up shit to explain it.

[nomorenomore08]

37. "Catchy little number, isn't it?"

:hide:

[madinmaryland]

69. Alerting. This shit belongs in the gungeon.

[Hard2believe]

71. Here we go again

every day there is another killing of more than one person in this the most industrialized nation in the world that ranks lower in crime rate than the developing country of Brazil.

No one wants to take away peoples guns but sh*t it's time to make it difficult to get them. Don't give me the crap about the criminals getting them if they want them. Just look at those "law abiding" citizens at the damn tea party crap strutting around like Daniel Boone and Rambo showing how tough they are with their guns. Friggin idiots.

No sale of more than one gun per person per year. Not one per month. No more shows where you can buy out of the back of a car. No buddy to buddy sales and if the case is that the second amendment is so frigging sacred I suppose you gun lovers are Weaver and Koresh fans. The guys that kill law enforcement agents and leave families mourning their deaths while you spew an archaic amendment that should have been thrown out after Columbine. But no, you wanted more of the same and it keeps on happening and will continue to happen.

[Kaleva]

72. One pundit said that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to private citizens

but millions of heavily armed private citizens believed otherwise.

[taurus145]

152. So does SCOTUS

n/t

[SteveM]

94. Get some control of yourself...

Concerning your points:

(1) The "crap about criminals getting " is quite true. But you know that.
(2) "Friggin idiots" though some tea party people may be, they were not breaking the law (see states where open-carry is allowed).
(3) "No sale of more than one gun per year. Not one per month." Could you clarify and settle on one position with clarity? Then
show us how that would solve things in terms of, say: murders, and other crimes involving guns. Please support with research.
(4) "buy out of the back of a car." As long as private citizens are PREVENTED from accessing the NICS system, and there is no
restriction on the sale of guns from individual-to-individual, the seller is only obligated to not sell arms to someone
known to be a criminal or mental incompetent. If and when the NICS system is extended to ALL citizens (and not just FFL
holders"), where someone sells the gun (trunk, kitchen table, porch) makes no sense. Incidentally, such NICS expansion is
debated by 2A defenders in this forum.
(5) "Weaver and Koresh fans," "Columbine": This reference is clearly a smear, you would agree. As for Columbine, one of the
shooters and his father (N.Y. Times) both agreed on one thing. The then-pending concealed-carry law being
debated in the Colorado legislature should be opposed. I suspect for rather divergent reasons.
(6) "...you wanted more of the same." Frankly, you show a real hatred many of your fellow Americans.

[Hard2believe]

107. Keep on

with your defense and ignore the fact as I stated. WE,THE US, is the most violent industrialized country in the world. Weaver and Koresh, a smear, you're being selective.

The fact that you can't grasp the difference between one gun a year and not one per month is enough for me to stop answering your inane arguments when again, there is nothing but idiotic and mindless defense of guns.

[PavePusher]

115. Please.

Self-fornicate elsewhere.

[Euromutt]

130. The US is not actually "the most violent industrialized country in the world"

...at least, if you look at all violent crime, not just homicide. You may be more likely to become the victim of a homicide in the US, but you're way more likely to be beaten, robbed, or knifed in the UK, and your chances of being non-fatally shot are approaching American levels as well. The United Kingdom fairly consistently ranks badly in the International Criminal Victims Survey for most forms of crime, especially nonfatal violent crime.

But if you focus on homicide, there's Russia. According to UNODC (http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/IHS-rates-05012009.pdf), in 2004, the US had an estimated murder rate of 5.6-5.9/100,000, whereas the Russian Federation's murder rate was estimated at 18.9-29.7/100,000, i.e. about three to fives times the US murder rate. The nonfatal violent crime rate is higher too. I'm fairly certain Russia counts as "industrialized."

But if you don't want to accept the example of Russia, how about the Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? They're members of the EU. Nevertheless, they had estimated murder rates of 6.7-8.9, 8.6-10.2 and 9.1-10.3/100,000, respectively. Most of the former Soviet Union is pretty murderous, actually, and what's more, the percentage of murders committed using firearms is unremarkable by European standards. Political assassinations like Anna Politkovskaya and mob hits aside, Russians tend more to beat each other to death, usually when they're drunk.

Incidentally, I don't know where you get the idea that US has a worse violent crime rate than Brazil. In that UNODC paper I cited, Brazil was listed as having a murder rate 26.2-30.8, and the source for that figure is the Brazilian health and justice ministries. I understand the murder rate has dropped somewhat since then, but it's still above 20/100,000.

[SteveM]

133. I will. You don't want to answer me because you have been refuted...

Now if guess you want "one gun a year" as opposed to "one per month." This strikes me as a false dichotomy by assuming we already have widespread laws/practices of limiting (presumably) gun sales to one-a-month. Can you point to laws which limit purchases to ANY time frame? Are these laws widespread?

How do you answer those who say we are NOT the most violent industrialized country in the world?

[rd_kent]

135. Hahahaha! You not only refute your own point but you make yourself look like an ass too!

"Don't give me the crap about the criminals getting them if they want them. Just look at those "law abiding" citizens at the damn tea party crap strutting around like Daniel Boone and Rambo showing how tough they are with their guns. Friggin idiots."


So, to back up your claim, you point out teabaggers legally carrying a gun? While yes. they DO look like idiots, they ARE legally exercising their Second Amendment rights, without violating the law.

You, sir, are an ignorant ass. Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.....

[friendly_iconoclast]

137. 'Developing countries' don't design, build and export jet aircraft.

The name Embraer ring a bell? Brazil has also has a space program and begun launching satellites.
Not to mention a fairly large auto and steel industries.

They also have a murder rate on par with the District of Columbia

I guess you excluded them because they don't jibe with your argument...

[madinmaryland]

116. Thank you, Mods!

[defendandprotect]

73. Why not? What we need less of is guns, bullets, uniforms, wars, violence . . .

[anonymous171]

77. Start with institutionalized violence and work down.

No use in depriving us serfs our only means of defense against the elites.

[Joe Fields]

79. fearful much?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. Asks the man crying for more regulation. LOL.

[defendandprotect]

85. Regulation bad . . . Wild West America good . . . ???

Pitiful ...

[eqfan592]

92. Take a look at the real "wild west" once and you'll see that crime was actually very low then.

And that's with just about everybody being armed. Regulation isn't inherently bad, but it isn't automatically good, either. And if you can't see that, then that's what really is pitiful.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

118. Quit whining.

[rl6214]

126. And just where are you gong to start your commune?

[slackmaster]

98. They seem obsessed because they are not well informed on the subject

That is clear.

[Hoopla Phil]

108. There is no such thing as a "Cop killer gun" or a "Cop killer bullet"

But you can claim any object used to kill a cop to be a "Cop killer xxxx" if you are wanting to make headlines. It may be a surprise to many to find out the when a gun is used to kill a cop the gun used is most often the police officers. Go figure.

[paulsby]

125. that's blatantly false

you are confusing a statistic.

it is true that the majority of the time a cop's gun is taken from him, he is shot with it.

it is NOT true that the majority of times an officer is shot, he is shot with his own gun.

iirc, it's almost 80% of the time a cop's gun is taken from him, he will be shot with it.

but far LESS than 50% of all times and officer is shot and killed, is it by his own gun.

grok the distinction?

[AtheistCrusader]

143. I've been meaning to ask

where do these numbers come from? It used to be part of the FBI unified crime report, in the 90's, but the numbers do not appear to be included anymore.

[shooter55]

145. not the cop killer guns!!!!!

You know, the FN five-seven, the gun that has NEVER ONCE been documented to have killed a LEO.... lol, by the Brady Bunch standard we can call a squirt gun a "cop killer" considering they've both killed the same amount of cops, a whopping 0!!!!!

Lets call all military rifles "civilization killers", not that they've ever killed a civiliation or anything, it just sounds really bad and scary!!!!