On Target! (Civilian owned Assault Rifle article) from Access to Energy Newsletter

SUBMAN1 · 07-25-06, 05:13 PM

Reading through the Access to Energy news letter, and though slightly off topic from energy, comes up this article which I found interesting that is based on Assault Rifles in civilian possesion.

-S

http://ate.sitewave.entrewave.com/vi...e/s76a2011.htm

ON TARGET

Surgeon and wound ballistics expert (and AtE subscriber) Martin L. Fackler, M.D., President of the International Wound Ballistics Association, has written numerous research articles that are especially relevant to current politically correct myths about firearms. See, for examples, M. L. Fackler, J. A. Malinowski, S. W. Hoxie, and A. Ja-son, Amer. J. Forensic Medicine and Pathology11 pp 185-189 (1990); M. Fackler, J. American Medical Association259 pp 2730-2736 (1988); and M. L. Fackler, Testimony before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on April 28, 1994 available from M. L. Fackler, RR 4 Box 264, Hawthorne, FL 32640.

One thing is certainly not debatable about the current "gun control'' craze in Congress. Legislation abridging the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional and will continue to be so unless an appropriate constitutional amendment is passed. The wisdom of gun control itself is debatable, but the facts are against the gun controllers. There is overwhelming evidence that violent crime diminishes when guns are easily available to citizens. Moreover, there is an inalienable human right and obligation of self-defense.

Dr. Fackler points out that 1) Assault rifle bullets are designed to wound rather than kill as restricted by the Hague Convention of 1899. 2) Assault rifle bullets actually do less tissue damage and are less lethal than those from most other firearms. This is verified in recent civilian incidents where the death rate for people actually shot has been 21%. 3) In 1992 only 3% of all American homicides with firearms involved rifles, and assault rifles were a small fraction of that 3%. Why then is the firearms witch hunt starting with assault rifles? The Founding Fathers protected the right to keep and bear arms specifically as a final check on government power, which they feared.

Most of America's assault rifles are in the attics, basements, and closets of patriotic Americans who never fire them and to whom war against their own government would be an unthinkable nightmare.

The problem is that millions of such weapons are now being stored in the homes of ordinary Americans, especially in the Western United States. Assault rifles have a military appearance and contribute in a subtle, psychological way to growing resistance to government oppression. Most farmers, ranchers, and loggers who see their lives and families entirely destroyed by Babbitt and retainers will never fire a shot. The existence of these weapons, however, makes resistance, even legal resistance, more thinkable to these victims.

The bureaucrats and politicians do not fear armed criminals or even armed political zealots so much as they fear peaceful Americans who will probably never use their assault rifles - but whose mental toughness may be enhanced by possession of military weapons.

The gun controllers are not deterred by the facts about guns and crime, because their primary fear is not criminals. They fear ordinary Americans whose lives and freedom their policies are destroying. In this fear and in their world, they are on target.

Ducimus · 07-25-06, 05:47 PM

Awesome bit of NRA inspired reading! lol

Im split on gun control personnally.

One one hand the vet in me says, theres no reason for a civillian to own military hardware of any sort. These are tools designed to do a job. That job is to kill people and break other peoples things. Both of which you can't legally do as a civillian. Go deer hunting with a 50 calibrer sniper rifle, M4, M203, or SAW? I don't think so. Home defense? sure go ahead, and when all those 5.56 your spewing go through the wall and hit your neighboors, guess who's liable.

On the otherhand theres the redneck yahoo in me that thinks their fun to shoot, and woudlnt want to be deprived of being able to "ramboo out" on some paper/3d targets at a shooting range.

SUBMAN1 · 07-25-06, 08:38 PM

My thoughts are, a .45 is not going to save you from multiple people. If 6 guys enter your home, and all you have is a .45, then you have a big problem. Next in line is again - the assault rifle - AR-15 in this case. Though it does a better job statistically than what the AK-47 would do killing wise, what it doesn't do well is wall penetration. Matter of fact, that is a big problem in Iraq now. Wall penetration is better with a 9mm, .40, and .45 than it is with an 5.56. So on one hand, what you say makes some sense, but on the other, a 5.56 is actually stopped more due to lower mass, regardless that initial mass will be high - it can't keep its energy going. So it is actually the better round to shoot at intruders in a home than a pistol ever would be. The AK round however is not real good and has higher penetration. Of course, you can't shoot it reliably at over 100 yards so it is the inferior weapon as compared to the AR-15/M-16.

As for the tool, I hear ya on one hand, but I also disagree with you after what we saw with Katrina. Roving bands of armed gangs. A simple .45 is not gonna do it for ya! Things will be different however in states like Washington for example. The difference? You will have a 9.0 magnitude Earthquake, yet everyone will still be here. There will be chaos everywhere and your roving gangs will be way worse for the survivors. Something with a larger ammo capacity will be required for situations like this. There is no other alternative.

Last but not least is the shotgun - I guess if you plan on killing your intended intruder, they only have a 30% chance of survival from a 12 guage loaded with buckshot. To compare it to an AK - they have a 76% chance of surviving after getting hit even multiple times according to statistics.

And the final reason - I have to agree with you - shooting up everything with a .22 just isn't fun.

Just my two cents. I could keep going, but you get the jist of it.

-S

PS. One more thought - Why should Americans not be armed with equal rifles as the military? Why should this be different than say 200 years ago where you were considered weird and unpatriotic for not owning a military style rifle? Just a thought. Sometimes I think our forefathers were a hell of a lot more intelligent than we are today.

Ducimus · 07-25-06, 10:44 PM

Well, im not one to normally discuss weapons, or gun control. When i was younger, i was a gun nut. Was hard not to be, i grew up in the 80's, went shooting at makeshift outdoor shooting ranges. (the type where you drove out to the desert with lots of jugs from home filled with water or sand and shot the **** out of them with every assorted arm you could buy back then).

Fast foward to years later, my later end of my enlistment, i found myself the old salt with the faded uniform who HATED going out to the shooting range where as the young troops looked foward to it. Its funny to me now because years ago i would have bought every conceivable arm if i had the money to, and now that i can afford a few that ive wanted, the intrest simply isnt there. Point is, i can see both sides of the gun control argument, but i have no real vested intrest in it either way.

Now as for penetration, i think theres one major differing factor vs CONUS and Iraq. What buildings are made of. I think you'll find alot more houses made of stuco, wooden frames, and sheetrock over here then there (masonry or mud), and rounds travel through that material alot easier to my understanding. Your going to get penetration no matter what round you fire, (err not sure about a 22 though it will still go through, but probably wont travel as far)

6 guys entering your house? Well, chances are, their either a bunch of punks that will run at the first shot, or your ****ed. Won't really matter too much what your packing . Granted a nice big box magazine will help, but i think the reality is, your outnumbered, and they have 6 guns to your 1. Hmm well i will degress one scenario, and thats some sort of standoff. A box magazine is much quickekr to reload, and if your 6 perps have any sort of clue, they'll wait for it.

Natural disasters, hmmm, i can't say much except i wish i bought that m-14 like i always wanted.

Home defense, i am a strong advocate for a good shotgun. Preferbly one designed for it that can hold 8/9 rounds. Less chance of wall penetration, the very sound of a shotgun being charged has pshycological advantages, and if the sound of one a 3" magnum 00 being chambered doesnt run them off, or the sight of one being pointed at you, the result after you pull the trigger most defintly will put them down. On top of that your odds of missing are alot less then a handgun or small carbine. In a situation like that your going to be stressed, and have to react fast, and in a darkened house at night, your aiming might be a little off. Of course, you don't really aim a shotgun, you point one at the center of mass

August · 07-25-06, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Home defense, i am a strong advocate for a good shotgun. Preferbly one designed for it that can hold 8/9 rounds. Less chance of wall penetration, the very sound of a shotgun being charged has pshycological advantages, and if the sound of one a 3" magnum 00 being chambered doesnt run them off, or the sight of one being pointed at you, the result after you pull the trigger most defintly will put them down. On top of that your odds of missing are alot less then a handgun or small carbine. In a situation like that your going to be stressed, and have to react fast, and in a darkened house at night, your aiming might be a little off. Of course, you don't really aim a shotgun, you point one at the center of mass

I agree 100% with this. Nothing says "Git" like the sound of a .12 gauge pump shotgun chambering a round.

Ishmael · 07-26-06, 10:48 AM

As a former weapons systems expert, I refused to own firearms for 30 years. I have qualified on 45 auto pistol, M-14 & M-16 rifles, 12 guage riot shotguns, Thompson 45 submachineguns & M60 light machine guns. I ended this boycott last year when I took my current job working in isolated locations in the wilderness of New Mexico. Since I am generally 200 miles from home, I bought my wife a 12 guage Mossberg pump shotgun for home defense. Since I have seen bear sign near some of my sights(ripped tree bark & big dents on my shelters about 8-9 feet high) I bought a folding stock AK-47 for personal defense. I have 2 37 round clips loaded that I carry with me. That gives me 15 rounds to fire into the air to scare the poor dumb animal off since I don't want to hurt it. If that doesn't work, I still have 40-50 rounds to put right in the middle of it. That should give me time to make it to the shelter & lock & bar the door so I can call the rangers to come get this bear off of my bazoota.

07-25-06, 05:13 PM	#1
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	On Target! (Civilian owned Assault Rifle article) from Access to Energy Newsletter Reading through the Access to Energy news letter, and though slightly off topic from energy, comes up this article which I found interesting that is based on Assault Rifles in civilian possesion. -S http://ate.sitewave.entrewave.com/vi...e/s76a2011.htm ON TARGET Surgeon and wound ballistics expert (and AtE subscriber) Martin L. Fackler, M.D., President of the International Wound Ballistics Association, has written numerous research articles that are especially relevant to current politically correct myths about firearms. See, for examples, M. L. Fackler, J. A. Malinowski, S. W. Hoxie, and A. Ja-son, Amer. J. Forensic Medicine and Pathology11 pp 185-189 (1990); M. Fackler, J. American Medical Association259 pp 2730-2736 (1988); and M. L. Fackler, Testimony before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on April 28, 1994 available from M. L. Fackler, RR 4 Box 264, Hawthorne, FL 32640. One thing is certainly not debatable about the current "gun control'' craze in Congress. Legislation abridging the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional and will continue to be so unless an appropriate constitutional amendment is passed. The wisdom of gun control itself is debatable, but the facts are against the gun controllers. There is overwhelming evidence that violent crime diminishes when guns are easily available to citizens. Moreover, there is an inalienable human right and obligation of self-defense. Dr. Fackler points out that 1) Assault rifle bullets are designed to wound rather than kill as restricted by the Hague Convention of 1899. 2) Assault rifle bullets actually do less tissue damage and are less lethal than those from most other firearms. This is verified in recent civilian incidents where the death rate for people actually shot has been 21%. 3) In 1992 only 3% of all American homicides with firearms involved rifles, and assault rifles were a small fraction of that 3%. Why then is the firearms witch hunt starting with assault rifles? The Founding Fathers protected the right to keep and bear arms specifically as a final check on government power, which they feared. Most of America's assault rifles are in the attics, basements, and closets of patriotic Americans who never fire them and to whom war against their own government would be an unthinkable nightmare. The problem is that millions of such weapons are now being stored in the homes of ordinary Americans, especially in the Western United States. Assault rifles have a military appearance and contribute in a subtle, psychological way to growing resistance to government oppression. Most farmers, ranchers, and loggers who see their lives and families entirely destroyed by Babbitt and retainers will never fire a shot. The existence of these weapons, however, makes resistance, even legal resistance, more thinkable to these victims. The bureaucrats and politicians do not fear armed criminals or even armed political zealots so much as they fear peaceful Americans who will probably never use their assault rifles - but whose mental toughness may be enhanced by possession of military weapons. The gun controllers are not deterred by the facts about guns and crime, because their primary fear is not criminals. They fear ordinary Americans whose lives and freedom their policies are destroying. In this fear and in their world, they are on target. __________________

07-25-06, 08:38 PM	#3
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	My thoughts are, a .45 is not going to save you from multiple people. If 6 guys enter your home, and all you have is a .45, then you have a big problem. Next in line is again - the assault rifle - AR-15 in this case. Though it does a better job statistically than what the AK-47 would do killing wise, what it doesn't do well is wall penetration. Matter of fact, that is a big problem in Iraq now. Wall penetration is better with a 9mm, .40, and .45 than it is with an 5.56. So on one hand, what you say makes some sense, but on the other, a 5.56 is actually stopped more due to lower mass, regardless that initial mass will be high - it can't keep its energy going. So it is actually the better round to shoot at intruders in a home than a pistol ever would be. The AK round however is not real good and has higher penetration. Of course, you can't shoot it reliably at over 100 yards so it is the inferior weapon as compared to the AR-15/M-16. As for the tool, I hear ya on one hand, but I also disagree with you after what we saw with Katrina. Roving bands of armed gangs. A simple .45 is not gonna do it for ya! Things will be different however in states like Washington for example. The difference? You will have a 9.0 magnitude Earthquake, yet everyone will still be here. There will be chaos everywhere and your roving gangs will be way worse for the survivors. Something with a larger ammo capacity will be required for situations like this. There is no other alternative. Last but not least is the shotgun - I guess if you plan on killing your intended intruder, they only have a 30% chance of survival from a 12 guage loaded with buckshot. To compare it to an AK - they have a 76% chance of surviving after getting hit even multiple times according to statistics. And the final reason - I have to agree with you - shooting up everything with a .22 just isn't fun. Just my two cents. I could keep going, but you get the jist of it. -S PS. One more thought - Why should Americans not be armed with equal rifles as the military? Why should this be different than say 200 years ago where you were considered weird and unpatriotic for not owning a military style rifle? Just a thought. Sometimes I think our forefathers were a hell of a lot more intelligent than we are today. __________________ Last edited by SUBMAN1; 07-25-06 at 10:09 PM.

07-25-06, 05:47 PM	#2
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	Awesome bit of NRA inspired reading! lol Im split on gun control personnally. One one hand the vet in me says, theres no reason for a civillian to own military hardware of any sort. These are tools designed to do a job. That job is to kill people and break other peoples things. Both of which you can't legally do as a civillian. Go deer hunting with a 50 calibrer sniper rifle, M4, M203, or SAW? I don't think so. Home defense? sure go ahead, and when all those 5.56 your spewing go through the wall and hit your neighboors, guess who's liable. On the otherhand theres the redneck yahoo in me that thinks their fun to shoot, and woudlnt want to be deprived of being able to "ramboo out" on some paper/3d targets at a shooting range.

07-25-06, 10:44 PM	#4
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	Well, im not one to normally discuss weapons, or gun control. When i was younger, i was a gun nut. Was hard not to be, i grew up in the 80's, went shooting at makeshift outdoor shooting ranges. (the type where you drove out to the desert with lots of jugs from home filled with water or sand and shot the ** out of them with every assorted arm you could buy back then). Fast foward to years later, my later end of my enlistment, i found myself the old salt with the faded uniform who HATED going out to the shooting range where as the young troops looked foward to it. Its funny to me now because years ago i would have bought every conceivable arm if i had the money to, and now that i can afford a few that ive wanted, the intrest simply isnt there. Point is, i can see both sides of the gun control argument, but i have no real vested intrest in it either way. Now as for penetration, i think theres one major differing factor vs CONUS and Iraq. What buildings are made of. I think you'll find alot more houses made of stuco, wooden frames, and sheetrock over here then there (masonry or mud), and rounds travel through that material alot easier to my understanding. Your going to get penetration no matter what round you fire, (err not sure about a 22 though it will still go through, but probably wont travel as far) 6 guys entering your house? Well, chances are, their either a bunch of punks that will run at the first shot, or your **ed. Won't really matter too much what your packing . Granted a nice big box magazine will help, but i think the reality is, your outnumbered, and they have 6 guns to your 1. Hmm well i will degress one scenario, and thats some sort of standoff. A box magazine is much quickekr to reload, and if your 6 perps have any sort of clue, they'll wait for it. Natural disasters, hmmm, i can't say much except i wish i bought that m-14 like i always wanted. Home defense, i am a strong advocate for a good shotgun. Preferbly one designed for it that can hold 8/9 rounds. Less chance of wall penetration, the very sound of a shotgun being charged has pshycological advantages, and if the sound of one a 3" magnum 00 being chambered doesnt run them off, or the sight of one being pointed at you, the result after you pull the trigger most defintly will put them down. On top of that your odds of missing are alot less then a handgun or small carbine. In a situation like that your going to be stressed, and have to react fast, and in a darkened house at night, your aiming might be a little off. Of course, you don't really aim a shotgun, you point one at the center of mass

07-26-06, 10:48 AM	#6
Ishmael Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Morro Bay, Ca. Posts: 659 Downloads: 79 Uploads: 0	As a former weapons systems expert, I refused to own firearms for 30 years. I have qualified on 45 auto pistol, M-14 & M-16 rifles, 12 guage riot shotguns, Thompson 45 submachineguns & M60 light machine guns. I ended this boycott last year when I took my current job working in isolated locations in the wilderness of New Mexico. Since I am generally 200 miles from home, I bought my wife a 12 guage Mossberg pump shotgun for home defense. Since I have seen bear sign near some of my sights(ripped tree bark & big dents on my shelters about 8-9 feet high) I bought a folding stock AK-47 for personal defense. I have 2 37 round clips loaded that I carry with me. That gives me 15 rounds to fire into the air to scare the poor dumb animal off since I don't want to hurt it. If that doesn't work, I still have 40-50 rounds to put right in the middle of it. That should give me time to make it to the shelter & lock & bar the door so I can call the rangers to come get this bear off of my bazoota.