cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/15645865

If the Supreme Court rules that bump stocks aren’t machine guns later this summer, it could quickly open an unfettered marketplace of newer, more powerful rapid-fire devices.

The Trump administration, in a rare break from gun rights groups, quickly banned bump stocks after the 2017 mass shooting at a Las Vegas concert that was the deadliest in U.S. history. In the ensuing years, gun rights groups challenged the underlying rationale that bump stocks are effectively machine guns — culminating in a legal fight now before the Supreme Court.

  • NuXCOM_90Percent
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The “funny” thing is: We don’t. This is all a red herring/sacrificial lamb by the gun nuts to make people think legislature is doing anything.

    The two most common rounds used in mass shootings in the US are the 5.56 mm/.223 (AR-15/M-4 round) and the 9mm pistol round. And while the type of round matters a lot, the commonly used variants of each tend to not over-penetrate to a significant level. What that means is that when it hits a kindergartner it stays in the kindergartner and tends to not cause significant damage to the Bluey stuffy they were protecting.

    Which, combined with the fact that militaries generally strongly frown upon (if not disable) full automatic fire on rifles, means that fire rate beyond “it is semi-automatic and fires as fast as you squeeze the trigger” is not important. Rapidly squeezing a trigger is considerably more effective than holding a rifle in just the right way to utilize a bump stock or just holding down a trigger to mag dump.

    But it provides a “culture war” talking point so that people can feel like concessions are being made when you can still buy almost exactly the same rifle we are giving special forces at a walmart.

    Unless we ban all semi-automatic/double-action firing mechanisms (which I would actually be very okay with and consider a genuinely good compromise), rate of fire is largely irrelevant. People aren’t going to be able to flee any faster from someone dumping a magazine with a single trigger pull or a jiggly bullshit.

    What matters are getting rid of fucking AR-15s (there is a REALLY good and horrifying article that goes into why the 5.56 round is so fucked up. Well worth googling) and drastically reducing magazine capacities.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      AR-15s are rarely used to kill people. Handguns are used in 90+% of all gun homicides.

      556 is not some magical round, it’s weaker than a normal hunting round. My AR10 shoots 308 and my 458 socom AR rounds are bigger than that.

    • HubertManne@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Im not so sure I would completely throw out indescriminate fire as not being bad but overall I agree with you. If you think about legitamate uses of guns I don’t see any that require more than the shooter outside of convenience (or you could argue a really bad shot needs it but I would argue maybe they should not have a gun outside of a range until they get gud).

      • NuXCOM_90Percent
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Indiscriminate fire is bad. But full auto or even “bump stock” auto just increases the odds that you shoot the same kindergartener twenty times rather than all of Mrs Anderson’s class.

        Politicians and lobbyists LOVE to make the argument about rate of fire. Because there is more or less an understanding that it is pointless to fixate on and is “safe” to ban. Even army machine gunners are trained to fire in VERY short bursts (if not single shots) unless they are trying to hit a target at long range.

        • I'm back on my BS 🤪@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I was in the US Marine Corps and deployed with the front lines for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. I never once even considered putting my M-16 on burst. I also had a 240G, which we’re taught to fire in little burts, about the time it takes to yell, “Run, fuzzy bunny, run!” Firing full auto is terrible practice. That Rambo style is for movies. Aiming is nearly impossible because of the tendency for the recoil to push the muzzle up, you’re wasting rounds, and you can also overheat the muzzle, potentially melting it to the point of making the firearm inoperable. Additionally, full auto on a magazine-fed firearm means you’ll have to reload in mere seconds, so the only way that would be helpful for maximum death is with one of those drums, which makes the rifle heavy as shit. Basically, full auto is pointless unless you’re using a firearm specifically designed for that, fighting a military force, have logistics to support your amm needs, and are using a “machine gun” starting with at least a M249 SAW. Even then, anything beyond that would likely require a second person to help.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      A 223 fmj round will go completely thru 1/8" steel at 50 yards what the fuck are u smoking when u say it won’t go thru a body???

      9mm may not if its a hollow point because of mushrooming and lower muzzle velocity.

      • NuXCOM_90Percent
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        The 5.56 round is a particularly nasty beast and it is well worth actually doing some research before running off your mouth because you think someone is threatening your emotional support assault rifle.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/ar-15-damage-to-human-body/ is a really good really trigger warning filled article that points out why the AR-15 is so incredibly deadly

        In a nutshell, it boils down to the tendency of a 5.56 round to tumble when it hits soft tissue. This is why you see such massive cavitation in ballistics gel and kindergarteners. So it leaves an exit wound but has lost the vast majority of its “stopping power” in the process

        Whereas, against a hard target, it is much less likely to tumble.

        So yeah. The more you know. But I would settle for “the less you run your mouth about things you don’t understand”.

        • commandar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          To expand a little bit for those that don’t want to click through:

          5.56 penetrates hard targets because it concentrates energy across a small cross-sectional area due to its small diameter. It delivers a lot of energy to a small point which helps it push through hard objects.

          5.56 similarly does not over penetrate in soft targets due to its dimensions: the projectile is narrow and relatively long, with the weight biased to the rear. This means that when it penetrates a soft object, the heavier tail end retains more energy and wants to flip past the tip of the projectile. Because the projectile is long and narrow, it tends to break apart when that happens. That quickly dumps the energy in the projectile and causes the large wounding effect being described above. Since the smaller fragments have less energy, they come to a stop much faster than a solid projectile would.

          tl;dr saying 5.56 is capable of both punching through steel and also generally won’t overpenetrate in soft targets is accurate because physics