Cop Killer Guns

The FN 5.7 is made by FN Herstal out of Belgium. This personal defense weapon has come under a lot of attack of media scrutiny recently. It originally was made for swat teams attempting to undertake subjects that are wearing Kevlar vests and are considered armed. Because of laws made against this type of gun and it’s ammunition, it is only available for military or police use. However that is not always the case. Drug Cartels particularly along the Mexican Border are gaining notoriety for using this gun as well as other criminals that have found ways to get access to this gun.
The FN 5.7 is a personal defense weapon that is considered one of the most deadly and the easiest to use in the world of this type of weapon. It’s smaller and lighter than a 9mm and it fires 5.7 by 28mm bullets. These bullets are light and small and have the ability to penetrate most “soft” Kevlar vests and several “hard” objects as well. It is capable of penetrating several layers of sheet rock and has stood up to several tests performed by the Passaic County Sheriff’s Dept. in NJ. According to Capt. Mohamed Lostan, “We shot it into bare gelatin and it penetrated 11 inches. We then placed a vest over some gelatin and tried it again, and it penetrated 9 inches. Fired through a piece of sheetrock and into gelatin, the bullet penetrated 8¼ inches.”
There has been a lot of folklore over the years about what has been considered “Cop-Killer Guns.” This name fueled by the media has been used to describe guns like the FN 5.7. The hype started around the mid 1960’s Dr. Paul Kopsch and his colleagues began experimenting with special purpose handgun ammunition. Their goal was to develop a law enforcement round capable of penetration of harder targets like windshield glass and automobile doors. In the 1970's, the scientists produced their "KTW" handgun ammunition using steel cored bullets capable of great penetration. Following further experimentation, in 1981 they began producing bullets constructed primarily of brass. The hard brass bullets caused exceptional wear on handgun barrels, a problem combated by coating the bullets with Teflon. The Teflon coating did nothing to improve penetration; it simply reduced damage to the gun barrel.



In January of 1982, NBC Television broadcast a prime time special titled "Cop Killer Bullets." They then aired a follow up six months later and the “myth” of Cop-Killing bullets was born. There was also a lot a media attention to these guns following the killing of Jim Brady. Jim Brady, Press Secretary to Ronald Regan was shot and killed in an assassination attempt by John Hinckley Jr., who had been arrested 4 days before purchasing the handgun on gun carrying charges and was under psychiatric care. This sparked fierce lobbying and the invention of the Brady Group, which has been the primary leader in handgun control advocacy. It eventually ended in the Brady Laws which state that background checks are now required for the purchase of handguns.
Most recently, the FN 5.7 was used in the Fort Hood shooting and has sense become the scapegoat for gun control advocates. On November 5th Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire on Ft. Hood on November 5th where troops receive medical attention before being deployed or after returning from overseas. He reportedly felt as though the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were targeting Muslims. Before being stopped by police, Hasan killed four commissioned officers, eight soldiers, and one civilian. Twenty-nine other people were wounded. He is now is being charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder.
This shooting along with several other cases in which the FN 5.7 and several other guns that shoot similar ammunition were used has made gun control groups and gun advocate groups spark up a new war on what’s fair, what’s dangerous, and what our second amendment rights really are.



Sources:
Casey, Mike . "Cop-Killer Bullets." 4 Oct. 2004. Web. 15 Nov. 2009. .  

Hodge, Nathan. "What, Exactly, Is a ‘Cop-Killer’ Gun? (Updated)." Wired 9 Nov. 2009. Web. 15 Nov. 2009. .

Humphries, Michael O. "Radical Tactical Firepower." Tactial Weapons May 2008. Web. 15 Nov. 2009. .

.

Jakes, Lara, and Devlin Barrett. "Rampage Gun purchased legally." The Associated Press 6 Nov. 2009. Web. 15 Nov. 2009

McKinley Jr. , James C. "Major Held in Fort Hood Rampage is Charged with 13 Counts of Murder." The New York Times 12 Nov. 2009. Web. 15 Nov. 2009. .

Stirling, Stephen. "NY: Police Confiscate "Cop Killer" Gun in Far Rockaway." New York Times 21 July 2006. Web. 15 Nov. 2009. .

My study of Darwin in this class has taken a new path. I’ve always thought of Darwin as an explanation of the physical world. But because technology is so prevalent in our class, I’ve begun to look at his work through that aspect. I’ve gone back and forth several times over the last few weeks on whether or not humans are effecting evolution for the better or worse. I’ve thought about the angle that more people are living and we have more of our species and therefore our species is dominant. But I can’t ignore the fact that there also is a component about competition between members of the same species. I feel also as though human intelligence has been the species greatest asset. I come to realize because of explanations by Darwin, that intelligence has become the most helpful and the most hazardous aspect of a human’s evolution.

In terms of the medical field, human knowledge has made significant leaps and bounds even in the last thirty years. Humans have become better at surviving and therefore are better at the ultimate goal of evolution, reproduction. They have also become more successful in ensuring that contraception can take place so their genes will be passed on to the next generation. Humans are constantly trying to medically bypass the natural selection of genes by “outsmarting nature.” It is no longer what you are born with but how resourceful you can be. Humans have found ways to make them more attractive, stronger, and more fertile by means personal intelligence or the intelligence of others. So in one sense we have aided natural selection in the respect that we increase our chances of our genes surviving to the next generation, and have found ways to make sure that certain traits are selected for. However we have also taken the job away from natural selection the short term in the sense that we have used our intelligence to live longer, have more children and artificially make ourselves more attractive to our potential mates. For example, we are no longer dying of certain genetic diseases. Certain diseases or “undesirable” traits are being continued to be passed on because medical science is treating them, therefore bypassing natural selection that would have had those genes die before they were able to reproduce. We are selecting to have these genes be passed on and thereby hindering the species. Furthermore, a natural way of keeping population down has been taken away. According to Thomas Malthus, the earth will not be able to support an ever-expanding population. Because the population is living longer and dying less due to medical advances we are changing the face of the evolution of the planet as well as ourselves. We have taken away a fundamental genetic “check” on the population by treating certain diseases. And because our species isn’t dying we are putting additional stress on other species because the planet is not an infinite resource for us to exploit.

Technology has also been a savior and a hazard to evolution. Humans have used their intelligence to build buildings, shape landscapes, and set up permanent residences. Humans have effectively used their technology to forever change the landscape of this Earth. Because of that change they have bettered themselves as a species in the sense that they are able to take most advantage of the natural resources available therefore allowing there genes to have a better chance of getting passed on. However, with this also comes the question of whether technology is our own form of Evolution that will eventually make our species obsolete. As Phillip K. Dick has pointed out, technology can go just as horribly wrong as it can do good. We cannot pretend that we are the only species affected by our interference with evolution. In “Evolutions and the Origins of Disease” by Randolph Nesse and George Williams, they explain the evolution of the HIV virus as it relates to the human race. They explain that we are more prone to treating the virulent strains of HIV that will kill thereby selecting for the less lethal ones that won’t by developing medical defenses and preventative measures. It then becomes about subsistence and the viruses that don’t kill are more likely to survive because their host is surviving longer. They say that, “our collective choices can change the very nature of HIV.” (Nesse, 462) The human race does not often think of how it’s choices effect other organisms. People tend to think that technology is only for humans and that it has no use or effect on other organisms. However if simple choices such as using a clean needle can have that dramatic an effect on viruses it’s terrifying to think what our other more significant choices have on other species. Our instinct tells us that it is better for our species to survive and our intelligence gives us the technology to do so. However, in that use of our technology we have unfortunately wiped out, altered, and hindered other species. Our intelligence is easily our greatest asset. We however have not evolved it enough to know how to use it with out being destructive to everything around us.

Sources:

Dick Philip K. The Philip K. Dick Reader, New York: Citadel Press. 1987.

Malthus, Thomas Robert. "An Essay on the Principle of Population." in Darwin 3rd ed. Philip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001

Nesse, Randolph M and George C. Williams. "Evolution and the Origins of Disease." in Darwin 3rd ed. Philip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001

science and human morality

I think the biggest problem that people have now is that we have become so dependent on science that we are willing to do away with our morality for it. We are willing to do just about anything "for the sake of science" because we somehow think that the end will justify the means. We live in a society so dependent on technology that we've come to a point where we can't imagine our lives without cell phones or how in the hell people survived without the benefits of computers. William F. Buckley Jr.'s "Why Don't We Complain" has been drilled into me for years in my formal education and I think it has some bearing here. Buckley argues that technology is continuing to make people more and more helpless and therefore we are less likely to stand up for ourselves because we are becoming a society of "sheep." The thought that we can't fix household appliances or do simple tasks without the benefits of machinery anymore scares Buckley, because he believes we will all soon become to helpless to function anymore. This thought is not uncommon in society. Many people believe that the next generation is more dependent on technology than the previous one and are concerned they won't be able to function when the electricity goes out. Because of this fear people are concerned that technology can be taken to far because everyone will look the other way in the face of questionable science for fear of losing how they get from one day to the next. Because we are so reliant on science our morals tend to go out the door, and the question of whether or not science can be taken to far becomes a valid one because science is no longer controlled by the confines of moral society. It no longer has a set of rules telling what is right and wrong because it falls into a category of it's own and anyone who questions it that isn't also a scientist is considered a conservative wingnut and standing in the way of progress. 

Works Consulted: 

Buckley, William F. "Why Don't We Complain?". 3 Sept. 2009