As a representative of “the nation’s largest and oldest civil rights organization,” is Wayne Lapierre constipated?
I suspect that the NRA is loath to criticize police, who are likely some of the gun industries best customers.
However, the police do not necessary admire the NRA, ,which, among other things, advocates unrestricted purchase of police-armor-piercing (“cop-killer”) ammunition
The political arm of the NRA is the representative of the gun manufacturing industry, not the police, and not even it’s own membership. Fear of ‘those people’ carrying guns is a major part of the marketing message of the gun industry.
Ammunition that can pierce armor is a function of velocity and mass, with velocity being the primary component. As a result, any rifle ammunition can pierce armor, and some high-velocity handguns like the FN Five-seveN. The concept of “cop-killer” ammunition is something that people invented to create a panic so the ammunition would be banned. It’s meaningless.
As an example of how meaningless it is, in 1993 Winchester introduced the Black Talon, a new hollow point design with a reverse taper on the jacket, meaning it was thicker on the hollow nose so when it expanded it would sustain the expansion instead of peeling back and reducing the size. There was an uproar about them, they were called “cop killers”, and a ban was threatened. Winchester changed the color from black to the usual brass and kept selling them as the Ranger SXT, which you can still get.
So, which are the “cop killer” bullets, the expanding rounds that offer significantly less penetration, or the ones that penetrate body armor? They’re polar opposites. The very notion of “cop killer” bullets is absurd on its face if you do even the smallest bit of critical thinking.
What is your understanding of ammunition specific features that make ammunition police-armor-piercing?
The organizations of chiefs of police tend to be less than absolutely on the NRA’s side on various issues for reasons more complicated than ammunition. Please. But leaving that aside…
Gun Rights organizations would be loath to be seen as critical of the policeman on the street lest that be seen as overtly part of the police-as-hostile-force viewpoint (implicit in many owners’ “arming ourselves against future tyranny” discourse – one of the issues of friction). Instead they want to present the picture of the “good guy with a gun” as an ideal supplemental force that can deal with threats on the spot while you wait for police to show up. However the NRA leadership surely know a large part of the constituency is a segment who believe that scenario is specifically about being prepared against the Thugs[sup]TM[/sup] or the terrorists, and we suspect what specific picture of a “thug” or terrorist they have in mind…
At the same time, Gun Rights advocates had been recently reaching out for minority support by pointing out that historic gun-ownership restrictions tended to be targeted unfairly in the direction of the disadvantaged minorities.
Yet, Castile did what NRA says lawful carriers are supposed to do when confronted with the authorities: let them know that you are carrying – and the police’s reaction was still “black man + weapon = any move is a threatening move, fire!” So it comes across as that when a white middle class gun owner says to the policeman “Sir, I have a handgun on me” the policeman hears an explanation to please not be surprised when you spot the firearm in the course of the stop, while if a black gun owner says the same thing the policeman hears a threat that you are at the ready to shoot it out with him.
If we are going to defend the right of lawful carry, it has to be defended for everybody, and if we’re going to say the wise course of action is to cooperate with police then it also applies to everybody. The organization may be uncomfortably realizing that they have constituents who are NOT on board with either.
Even a .22 short is a ‘cop killer’ round if proper ‘gun control’ is used in the aiming of said round.
I have found that anyone who is using a media invented word/words as real in stating their argument either pro or con without noting that it is total BS can not be reasoned with. They never change.
As to the subject of this thread, new information & pictures are out that change things dramatically. It is still from the media but the pictures and timeline make the original media information really wrong. This is probably also considering the source but the pictures and the likely reality of the timeline make it whole new ball game.
Put the broad brushes down and go Googling… As per usual, the earlier the info comes out the more wrong it is.
Assault rifle as used by media = no such thing
Cop killer rounds as used by media = no such thing
Civilian Armor piercing rounds as used by media = no such thing
Maybe the constant rounds of this on the board might affect some random reader of the thread but by this time, I doubt it.
The press is free to be wrong, deliberately wrong, slanted and hysterical, We are free to believe them or not.
We are at fault for continuing to believe them. Seems we want to believe them because we are not as smart as we think we are.
Um, why are you playing coy? Why don’t you say what new information there is? Is it the police scanner audio that says he was pulled over because his “wide set nose” matched an armed robbery suspect?
The NRA has to oppose any and all anti-gun legislation because they see any & all of it as simply a means to an end. As sliding down the slippery slope to the eventual banning of all private firearm ownership. And they’re not entirely crazy, as there is no shortage of radical left-wingers who openly state that is, in fact, their goal.
And once again a gun discussion degenerates into technicalities and semantics.
If Castile were white and killed by LEO, the NRA, and La Pierre personally, would be all over this.
On the other hand, if Castile were white, he’d probably still be alive.
White v Black open carry experiment. The first 2 1/2 minutes of the video basically tells the tale but it goes further.
Silence is consent, is it not? If we simply let everything wrong go (which is most of it) we would be giving the gun control advocates everything they need to finish the job. It’s our responsibility to tell the truth. If you choose to remain ignorant that’s up to you.
Here’s a thought: Make a small(and most likely needed) correction involving the tech talk, then make an honest effort to talk about the actual subject of the thread-This way it doesn’t look like a blatant attempt to change the subject.
So why aren’t *you *a “gun control advocate” in any way? Why are such people an Other to you?
Because bans aren’t my end game. I’ve repeatedly said what new controls I would assent to, but in the context of the gun debate those measures don’t constitute gun control. Just as the abortion debate has ill-defined categories, the gun debate does as well. But hey, I’m getting into technicalities and semantics and not addressing the OP, so this post isn’t welcome. My apologies.
If gun control advocates would make an honest effort to talk about the actual subject of basically any thread, there would be no need for anyone to point out their use of poorly defined and emotionally charged terminology. “Cop Killer” bullets and “Assault Weapons” and “Saturday Night Specials” and the like are not useful terms in any kind of honest debate.
What’s the topic of this thread?
Nor do you have a partial one, either.
Controls aren’t control? How’s that work? 
No, you’re not getting into semantics at all. You’re merely being inconsistent and evasive. Just like the NRA and its membership. Which *is *the OP.