Posted: 2/8/2009 5:56:33 AM EDT
|
Cop killing bullets, bullets that kill cops are there bullets that don’t kill cops? I understand this is based on body armor classification.
So if that is the case if the police oficer is wereing a Type I (.22 LR; .380 ACP) vest then any bullet in a larger caliber is a cop killer. Same thing with Type II-A (9mm; .40 S&W), Type II (9mm; .357 Magnum), Type III-A (High Velocity 9mm; .44 Magnum), Type III (Rifles), and Type IV (Armor Piercing Rifle). Now if it’s a head shot in the eye .22 short can be a cop killer. So what the hell are none cop killing rounds? If the oficer is wearing Type IV which protecs from armor piercing rifle then most rounds none cop killers? Buy the way Type IV only stops against .30 caliber armor piercing (AP) bullets (U.S. military designation M2 AP), with nominal masses of 10.8 g (166 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 869 m/s (2850 ft/s) or less, may provide only single-shot protection, since the ceramic tends to break up when struck. The other problem with these vests is they are heavy! I know I have worn them as a soldier. Know I have never been shot, but I have seen wounds of people who have been. An armor piercing round does a hell of a lot less damage then a FMJ, or a soft point. So would some please explain to me what the hell a none cop killer bullet is? Because last time I check the laws of physics were still in effect. 
|
|
"Cop-killer" bullets are one of two things.
#1 An actual cartridge that was designed to penetrate armor, and they are out there. #2 Anything the gun-banners want to get rid of. (One of the "armor-piercing" rounds was actually a 30/30 round. But since it was "capable" of defeating body armor, it was "armor-piercing." Any excuse to disarm us is OK with them.) As you have mentioned, a rifle round will penetrate the lowest level of body armor. But that doesn't make it "armor-piercing", although they have tried to make it seem that way. Now when you get to "teflon coated armor-piercing cop-killing bullet", they are talking specifically about the KTW. It is available only to law enforcement, and it is made of teflon coated tungsten steel. The teflon is there to protect the barrel of the gun, as the tungsten is much harder than the steel that is used for the barrel. This way they don't ruin their guns by shooting that ammo. Makes sense, no? |
|
Quoted:
"Cop-killer" bullets are one of two things. #1 An actual cartridge that was designed to penetrate armor, and they are out there. #2 Anything the gun-banners want to get rid of. (One of the "armor-piercing" rounds was actually a 30/30 round. But since it was "capable" of defeating body armor, it was "armor-piercing." Any excuse to disarm us is OK with them.) As you have mentioned, a rifle round will penetrate the lowest level of body armor. But that doesn't make it "armor-piercing", although they have tried to make it seem that way. Now when you get to "teflon coated armor-piercing cop-killing bullet", they are talking specifically about the KTW. It is available only to law enforcement, and it is made of teflon coated tungsten steel. The teflon is there to protect the barrel of the gun, as the tungsten is much harder than the steel that is used for the barrel. This way they don't ruin their guns by shooting that ammo. Makes sense, no? Yes, I understand that a cop killer bullet is a big marketing campaign by the Anit-Gun crowd. But so called cop killer bullets cause the least amount of damage. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: #2 Anything the gun-banners want to get rid of. (One of the "armor-piercing" rounds was actually a 30/30 round. But since it was "capable" of defeating body armor, it was "armor-piercing." Any excuse to disarm us is OK with them.) Yes, I understand that a cop killer bullet is a big marketing campaign by the Anit-Gun crowd. But so called cop killer bullets cause the least amount of damage. And "gun control" laws don't effect the criminals, or really reduce crime. The similarity is that such measures sound good to the gun-ignorant unfamiliar crowd. This allows the politicians the ability to say they "did something", even when it doesn't have any effect. And FWIW, you're trying to apply logic to an emotional argument. You'll almost never see a liberal try to support "gun control" with statistics, as most of them can be quickly dismissed due to problems with the sample groups, irreproducability or other flawing of their methods. |
|
Quoted:
Yes, I understand that a cop killer bullet is a big marketing campaign by the Anit-Gun crowd. But so called cop killer bullets cause the least amount of damage. Your problem is that you expect the argument to be logical and make sense. It can do neither because they would then have no argument, could not advance their political/social agenda, and could not self-validate their otherwise pointless existence. |