RSS Feed

civic issue 2

February 26, 2015 by Garren Christopher Stamp   

One thing that is very controversial regarding guns is armor piercing rounds. They are so controversial that the federal government has banned any round specifically designed to pierce metal or kevlar vests. However, many pro-gun activists are calling for a repeal of this ban.

Armor piercing rounds are very simple to manufacture. The main difference is that armor piercing rounds are covered in a full metal jacket instead of having an opening on the front to expose the lead underneath. This allows for armor piercing rounds to not shatter on first contact like a normal bullet would. This is where the armor piercing name comes from. These bullets can go through bullet proof jackets as well as some metal because the metal on the front keeps the bullet intact as it passes through these obstacles.

The major fear when it comes to armor piercing rounds is that police wear bullet proof vests and allowing citizens to own bullets that can penetrate these becomes a major hazard to all law officials. While deaths related to armor piercing rounds are relatively low, you do need to factor in that they are currently illegal and therefore access to armor piercing rounds outside of the military is very hard to get. If they were legal and much more available it is probable that deaths related to armor piercing rounds would dramatically increase.

The counter argument is that the illegality of these rounds only affects law abiding citizens. People who were planning on using their weapon to attack and kill police officers are already planning to break the law. If they are willing to murder a police officer, why wouldn’t they be willing to buy illegal rounds from a black market? This law only takes away from law abiding citizens and their want to own armor piercing rounds.

Many people against allowing the sale of full metal jacket rounds say that their is no reason for a normal citizen would need to own this. They say that most people use their guns for target practice and hunting and that deer and targets don’t wear armor. Pro-gun activists dispute this claim. The main claim by pro-gun activists is that armor piercing rounds are allowed by the second amendment. They say that the reason that militias were included was to allow the people to defend themselves from a future tyrannical government. They argue that the ability of the people to fight off a future despotic government is something the founders wanted to insure. That is what the founders just did and they would want to make sure that the populace could do it again if need be.

Pro-gun activists also point to the removal of firearms in communist and fascist countries. Heinrich Himmler, Hitler’s second in command and Reichsfuhrer of the SS, famously said, “Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.” The German populace as well as the populations of con tries they conquered were systematically disarmed. Many pro-gun activists try to show that without an armed populace a tyrannical government can abuse its citizens. Similar disarmament occurred in the Soviet Union and is also quoted as a possible outcome of a government controlling and abusing its disarmed citizens.

Pro-gun activists dispute this. They say that the time of citizens being honestly able to fight its government is over. The federal government has tanks, airplanes, drones, and much more advanced technology than its citizens could ever possibly have access to. Because of this the line of reasoning that citizens need armor piercing rounds to fight back is null and void because even with armor piercing rounds it would be impossible for the citizens of the United States to fight back. Because of this, the only thing that legalizing armor piercing rounds would allow is for more police officers to die.

1 Comment »

  1. Eric Hodge says:

    After reading this, I find myself to be in support of the ban. For all traditional and recreational usages, non full metal jacket bullets do just fine. I think that for the most part our government is stable, unlike what it was when before the second amendment was written. I feel as though people who want to start a government uprising nowadays are probably disillusioned and will kill in vain. I am in favor of protecting recreational arms rights, but it think the ban of fmj bullets should remain.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Skip to toolbar