(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Everything You Need to Know About Guns to Effectively Legislate Guns [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']

Date: 2023-05-17

Edit: when I refer to “leftist gun owners” I am referring to leftists in spaces centered on guns. IE, if you ask a group of leftist who you know own guns what they think, this is how they mostly respond. I am not referring to all leftist gun owners as “monolith” but pulling from my own experiences based on leftist gun spaces

I often find gun laws lacking in knowledge. There are engineering oversights that occur when people untrained in the subject try to restrict access to certain types of weapons. I have made my stance clear in the past, police involved licensing schemes produces bigoted results that don’t reduce gun violence and Assault Weapon Bans will either be ineffective or also produce bigoted results depending on if weapons are grandfathered in or banned altogether. I am not here to argue for these points, but rather here to argue for common sense in how legislate firearms. There are so many states with AWBs where if you get a slightly outdated gun you can essentially have the same firepower and capacity as an AR-15. There are a lot of myths and misconceptions around gun usage, and I want to correct those. This isn’t to convert anyone else to gun ownership or be against specific laws, but rather to make these laws more effective if they are going to be passed.

There are plenty of gun owners that aren’t bloodthirsty idiots LARPing as military while opposing all restrictions and voting red. There are plenty of gun owners, yes even AR-15 owners, that are leftists, democrats, centrists, and independents. The broad brush I see used to paint gun owners here ignores these people and assumes that all owners must be hostile to regulation of any kind. I am one such leftist that has an interest in firearms and is for reasonable regulation but feel that the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater as “we have to do something” becomes “these people oppose an AWB ban and therefore are pro-children dying because they want to have access which gives others access or have been tricked by the gun media complex into thinking they need this more than children need to stop being shot,” when the reality is most leftist gun owners don’t think something like an AWB would be helpful.

So please take a small journey with me into the mechanics of firearms and a few socioeconomic factors that show why law enforcement and grandfathering will not dig us out of this hole. Even if you think all gun ownership is immoral you will be able to make more convincing arguments if you know what you are talking about. If the goal is to unite the number of people who want better laws in the abstract under the banner of new regulations, then displaying basic knowledge of what is being regulated will convince those people open to regulation but unwilling to surrender certain types of arms that you should be listened to. Now let’s get down to brass tacks and start with what is actually fired from a gun.

A 5.56mm NATO round vs a .22 Long Rifle rimfire cartridge

Bullets are where a gun’s power comes from and 5.56 NATO is available in many guns. It has been pointed out that old rimfire guns have a bullet caliber similar to an AR-15. If size is not the deciding factor than what is? Yes, a 5.56 bullet is longer, but it also mostly the powder. The none bullet part of the cartridge is where the powder is contained, so it is easy to see that a 5.56 NATO round holds significantly more powder. This results in vastly different pressures. A .22 Long Rifle round produces pressures of up to 24,000 PSI and a 5.56 NATO round produces pressures of up to 52,000 PSI. For comparison a 9mm gun, the most common handgun caliber can withstand pressures of up to 35,000 PSI. This is relevant because too many bans focus on specific models. The Washington state AWB banned AR-15s and many features but still allows the sale of a Ruger Mini 14. The ergonomics are outdated, and it costs a lot more, but it shoots the same bullets as an AR-15. Also, they do sell conversions that would make a Mini 14 have the same feature of an AR-15. These conversion kits are already illegal according to the ban, but it is much easier to illegally source a kit than a gun. The question is, do they think that this gun is less dangerous despite having the same bullets or do we need to constantly update the rolls with new guns? If the bullets are the problem than surely all semiautomatic guns that fire that bullet should be banned? I cannot speak to their intentions, but this is why gun owners see such legislation as ineffective. They now have to pay twice as much for a lower quality gun that one could easily use the same way as an AR-15.

On the left is the venerable .30-06, called the most popular deer hunting round of the 20th century; on the right is the 5.56mm NATO that is fired from an AR-15

5.56 NATO is not significantly more damaging than other rifle rounds. I see all the time that it does extreme damage beyond the pale of what a hunter would ever need. This is frankly untrue. 5.56 NATO is banned for deer hunting in many places for being underpowered. It usually produces a clean shot but if the shooter is not on their game, then it could injure the animal without killing them. The idea that people using AR-15s to hunt are senseless decimating animals and destroying meat is ridiculous. The bullets made for the AR-15 are meant to optimize injury capacity on smaller than deer sized targets versus weight, so larger amounts of ammunition can be carried without burden. If anything is more deadly about an AR-15 it is that it the ammo is designed for fitting as much ammo in a magazine as possible. An AR-15 with a smaller magazine is going to be significantly less deadly than a deer rifle with a comparable number of bullets. in fact, 5.56 NATO is half the size of what has been called the most popular deer hunting cartridge of the 20th century. The 30-06 reaches pressures of 60,000 PSI while pushing a bullet 3x the mass of a 5.56 NATO bullet downrange. The .30-06 is the cartridge was used in by America in M1 Garands during WW2. After the military decided that they needed something more maneuverable they upgraded an AR-15 into the M16 rifle, which shot stronger bullets than the original .223 Winchester bullets. In other words, the military downgraded the power of their previously massive and heavy guns for carrying capacity and maneuverability in the jungle. The .30-06 cartridge has remained one of the most popular deer rounds all the way through today. It is never wrong to talk about the horrific damage a shooting causes, but we should not use it as evidence that a specific cartridge is bad. We either need no semiautomatic rifles or smaller magazines, claiming the AR-15 is more deadly than other rifles when it is in fact one of the weakest rifles available does not produce good laws.

A classic Ruger 10/22

A Ruger 10/22 modified with a bullpup conversion. Bullpup guns have the barrel pushed into the stock so that someone can have a shorter overall rifle while not being considered a Short-Barrel Rifle that needs a Nation Firearms Act tax stamp

AR-15s makers have had decades to make accessories for them. If the AR-15 were banned and some other rifle became the most popular, similar accessories would be made for the new rifle. Modularity is a huge goal in modern gun design and there are mods that completely changes the size or shape of a rifle. These exist for guns other than an AR-15, but the popularity is what drives the market. If we succeeded in banning all AR-15s, then the gun community would find a new do-it-all rifle. For example, the Ruger 10/22 is a very popular rifle, probably the most popular semiautomatic rifle in the .22 LR cartridge. This gun has been produced continuously since 1964 and do this there is a massive aftermarket. If you look at the original, it has no “tactical features” that are targeted in bans, and yet there is a huge number of mods to make them more have better ergonomics similar to an AR-15. There are even mods to make it into a bullpup rifle complete with the same rails and MLOK attachment points as many modern AR-15s. Now this same gun can take most of the upgrades built for AR-15s. People will make the guns they have into the gun they want so banning specific models isn’t effective in the long run.

a jig for finishing an 80% complete AR-15 receiver

Home manufactured firearms are legal in most places. This means that there are an unknown number of homemade firearms out there in addition to the 24.4 million rifle guess at how many AR-15s there are now. There are two easy methods. For the first one you buy and almost made receiver and finish it yourself. They come with jigs so all you have to do is trace the holes with your drill and router. The other options is to 3D print one of the many publicly available rifle receivers from the internet. This is so legal that they have people openly discussing on reddit how to troubleshoot and sharing designs. The receiver is the serialized part of the firearm, the part you get a background check to buy. Once you have a receiver, you can ship all the other parts necessary to your home to finish the rifle with no background checks. The ability to produce a receiver means the ability to build a rifle without any oversight. In addition, assembling a 3D printed gun requires some challenges with trial. Meanwhile. printing a large capacity magazine is exceedingly easy, easy enough to be one of the first projects when learning to use the printer. For an in between challenge someone could print a conversion kit for a gun legal where they live, but it is very hard to keep specific parts or accessories.

A pistol grip designed for a rifle.

One of the least helpful parts of bans is all the features they ban for being used or designed in a military context. Features that add ease of use do not mean that such features are meant specifically for warfighting. Pistol grips are one of the first things on most AWB lists. Pistol grips were originally singled out because people were changing weapon models in order to get around the CA AWB in place, so they changed it so that certain features singled a gun out as an “assault weapon.” This is the basis for why most features are maligned by gun control. Pistol grips have the sole purpose of shooting comfortably. If you are at the range and you want to have a better grip, you use a pistol grip. Pistol grips are common on military weapons because they provide maneuverability. The thing is everyone wants comfort and maneuverability. If you are using a shotgun to defend your house and you want maximum control to get around corners and doorways the clear choice is a pistol grip. Pistol grips are better for urban environments whether that is the home, the range, or a shooting competition. They improve comfort and function for civilian uses the same way a military user would. Being introduced by the military cannot be the only standard, plenty of people with weak wrists could really benefit from pistol grips and while the control is helpful for everyone, forcing a shooter to use a slightly less comfortable gun isn’t going to lower the damage they cause. Forward Vertical Grips are another feature that can mark a gun as an assault weapon.

a modern handguard that would also be considered a barrel shroud

a heat shield for an AR-15, type of handguard was on original models

Barrel Shrouds or heat shields are also targeted. This is based on the idea that such a shroud is specifically for keeping the hand from heat caused by rapid firing, which would mainly be used for harmful purposes. This might be true of shotguns heat shields, as one is unlikely to fire a shotgun that rapidly outside of competition or combat. AR-15s on the other hand have extremely long and thin barrels. An AR-15 barrel can get very hot from a small number of shots, so having a barrel that isn’t exposed is a safety feature necessary for that type of gun. A barrel shroud is made to substitute for the forearm of a traditional stock. I could take the same “barrel shroud,” cut it in half, and suddenly the exact same equipment is legal because my hand is exposed to danger. Not to mention a spree killer can just wrap the barrel in fabric or somethings. That wouldn’t be good for the mechanics of the firearm, but they don’t need good mechanics to shoot someone at point blank range. Again, comfort and safety are the purpose of these features and banning them takes nothing away from killers.

an A2 flash hider, standard on most AR-15 rifles

A muzzle brake, gas coming out of the sides and pushing rearwards stabilizes the barrel and counters rearward recoil

a compensator, similar in concept to a muzzle brake but focused more on stability than recoil

Chart comparing decibel levels for different firearms with and without suppressors

Threaded barrels are something else that is labeled tactical and dangerous. Besides flash hiders and compensators, they are used for silencers. Silencers are very misunderstood because people know them mainly from spy movies. I have seen politicians say that the only purpose of a silencer is concealing criminal wrongdoing. This is not true at all. If you have a gun to defend your home, you want a silencer. Shooting an unsuppressed gun indoors is enough to cause instantaneous and permanent hearing damage. It is good to have ear protection nearby, but silencers make a gun much more relatively safe for any critters or people who can’t get to ear protection. They also drastically reduce noise pollution while hunting. They are rarely used for crimes, in the range of a few thousandths of a percentile. As part of the NFA tax required to get it, you need to be registered with the federal government and you can’t just loan it to a friend, as well as the cheaper ones costing hundreds of dollars. For the 5.56 NATO or most pistol rounds, shooting a gun unsuppressed is going to be around 170 decibels. An increase of 10 dBA translates to being twice as loud and a jet plane taking off is approximately 150dBA, so firing an unsuppressed gun is 4x louder than a jet plane taking off. Firing a suppressed gun is 135-140 dBA, which brings it down to the level of a regular plane taking off. Even a .22LR gun with a suppressor, probably the weakest round widely available today, produces the same amount of noise as an ambulance siren. People within several hundred meters are going to hear gunfire, suppressed or not. People one kilometer away not hearing a gunshot does not put any one in danger.

suppressor user for reducing decibel level of firearms

All of these features make shooting “easier.” They make it a more manageable and accessible experience for those of smaller stature, those with muscle weakness, and those who want to push guns to the limit safely in competition. No spree killer is using these weapons to their maximum potential or pushing their capabilities. They are all imbalanced situations against unarmed targets. Having their aim slightly compromised while shooting someone less than ten yards away isn’t slowing them down. Comfort features aren’t a deterrent for someone that determined to cause harm and they make the lives of everyone else more difficult.

This is the only section not based in technical knowledge, but it seems a relevant enough factor to talk about it nonetheless. Leftist gun owners are suspicious of police licensure or repossession. Let’s just not involve the police in the solution. If we decide to do licenses, then we should let the DMV handle it. Same as a driver’s license with a background check. Otherwise, we get well-documented disparities in policing that hurt minorities while not reducing crime. I documented this in a previous diary based on some reporting from Block Club Chicago. This is documented for a Chicago licensing plan and the pattern has held true in places without strenuous gun laws like Memphis. Bans have a similar question of enforcement. Do we grandfather the current weapons in or try to repossess them? If we grandfather them in, then people can still carry their AR-15s to the range or competition and there will be no way to identify who has an illegal one.

If we go about the massive task of repossessing the guns and outlawing current owners than how do we find and take back all of the rifles? That is at least 24.4 million before getting into ghost guns, unregistered rifles, banned pistols, and banned shotguns. How do we prevent police from using the excuse of searching a weapon for bans to disenfranchise minorities, especially in places like Florida where not a decade ago we have proof police conspired with the KKK to murder minorities? People really don’t want police led red flag laws. If they are enacted they should not be able to be called in by the police. These are questions that leftists, and especially leftist gun owners, want answered before they support any new laws or regulation. Law enforcement has a long history of infiltration, surveilling, and entrapping of leftist movements. We have things like COINTELPRO as huge and obvious historic examples as well as more recent stories like this recently published story in The Intercept, THE FBI USED AN UNDERCOVER COP WITH PINK HAIR TO SPY ON ACTIVISTS AND MANUFACTURE CRIMES. Leftists have every reason to believe they will be targeted by these types of laws, especially red flag laws where police can submit tips. This adds a lot of complexity, as a law that could otherwise work will be hampered by police favoring white supremacists and targeting minorities.

In conclusion, the world of firearms is much more complex than these laws would have you believe. I am far from believing there should be no regulation, but the stories I hear told about how guns work and what would fix the problem feel very disconnected from reality. Despite the fact that support for stronger gun laws remains high, support for specific gun laws like Assault Weapon Bans has been eroding in some polls. I think to achieve national change on the issue we need to speak out while knowing what we are talking about. Every person claiming only brainwashed losers or the mentally unwell would own an AR-15 is another gun owning leftist who decided not to share something but votes against ill-informed laws. If we want laws to be effective, we need to include experts and the stakeholders. If we fail to do that then compliance will be low, and nothing will change.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/5/17/2169674/-Everything-You-Need-to-Know-About-Guns-to-Effectively-Legislate-Guns

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/