This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Visualizing the 2021 National Firearms Survey
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/visualizing-the-2021-national-firearms
tags: [guns][self promotion][data visualization]
Summary:
William English of Georgetown collaborated with Centiment to poll 54,244 people about gun ownership, and develop a detailed picture of what ratio of the country owns guns, what kinds, what ratio of the country has used a gun in self defense, and such. It's the largest and most detailed attempt ever made in this research space as far as I'm aware, and I'm aware of many such attempts by academics. This article graphs a lot of his results, but instead of graphing them within the context of the research, graphs them against other known quantities to put them into wider perspective.
Findings:
There are 33% more people in the USA who own AR-15 styled rifles than the entire Asian population.
There are approximately as many people in the USA who own magazines larger than 10 round capacity as there are black people.
"Assault weapons bans" would generally require 12% of the entire population to register their firearms or be in felonious noncompliance, a number of people roughly equal to the entire population of California
By ratio, this is equal to 2012 people required to register for every 1 firearm homicide
There are 19 times more AR-15 owners than the entire active duty rolls of the US military
There are 410 times more AR-15 owners than there were Taliban fighters at the time the US military lost to the Taliban
There are 14,000 AR-15 owners for every ATF field agent
Across all states, between 20% and 44% of gun owners own an AR-15 styled rifle
For every gun murder in the USA in 2020, there were 86 defensive gun uses. Note that the poll took a broad definition of DGU here, including instances where the firearm was not discharged or potentially even brandished
44% of black gun owners have used a gun in self defense
27% of female gun owners have used a gun in self defense
Meta:
Nice site you got here folks! I'm curious whether it can support different forums, so that instead of the CW thread being a thread it could simply be different posts within a separate containment forum.
I’m thinking the self defense claim is boosted by activist owners who want to bolster support for gun ownership on a survey. There is simply no chance that 44% of black gun owners have used their gun in self defense.
However I see no reason to lie about AR ownership, and this makes me happy because AR ownership is double-plus bad in the eyes of gun restrictionists. So, all those AR owners are making a statement 100% opposed to the propaganda about the AR, just by continuing to own them.
Some cases of AR ownership are even a step further - one of the major reasons I chose to purchase an AR-15 is because of the political valence around it and proposed ATF restrictions. Yes, it's also fun to shoot at the range and could serve as a quality home defense weapon, but I could have just as easily chosen something else that fits that description. I don't know how many people are in a similar boat, but I don't think I'm all unusual of a gun owner.
To be honest, the AR-15 platform is literally the best platform for doing what it does, which is standoff gun fights at intermediate ranges. All the other semiauto carbines are functionally inferior in my opinion, and I've shot a lot of them. Other guns really only shine over the AR-15 in specialized circumstances where the AR-15 has a specific disadvantage. Indoors, for instance, a PCC is probably better. At range, a 30 cal of some kind is probably better. Add in the fact that the AR-15 platform is almost infinitely customizable, and gives men the sorts of barbie doll accessorization fix they used to get from tinkering on cars, and it's no surprise they'd be popular. It's really pretty much the best gun you can buy for that particular task. It's just a great gun design.
The AR platform is only customizable to the degree it is in a post-GWOT, post-M4 carbine world. Even then you still have gas tuning peculiarities between various gas system lengths/blocks, buffer lengths/weights. Direct Impingement with the buffer system trades some weight and some softness in recoil for a lot of dirty gas in critical areas all the way down into the magazines. The buffer system also makes folding the stock for portability require an expensive adapter that still can't fire in that configuration so most folks disassemble the rifle for that use case. The design is mid and it survives because of half a century of government funding leading to wide availability of critical and add-on parts.
All this can be true, and yet it's still the best around. Your complaints boil down to one that is irrelevant (dirty gas), one that is actually a positive thing (the ability to tune the gas system to a wide variety of calibers), and one that is valid but incredibly minor (lack of ability to fire the gun with the stock folded/lack of folding stock).
There's a lot of military-pattern rifles that are very decent, but none that have anything like the raw number of options that the AR platform does. That is partially because the gun is military-pattern, which is always popular with civilians in the US. But moreso it's because those civilians are way out ahead of the government when it comes to innovation and technology applied to firearms. Competitive shooting drives technological innovation, civilians fund it by buying new "high speed" doodads for their guns, the military skims the stuff that works out the best. It's a "virtuous cycle" of technological development. If you added all the accessories available for the next ten most popular military-pattern rifles in the world together, they would be a tiny fraction of what's available for the AR.
Go ahead and just try to put a scope on an AK-pattern rifle. You'll see why the AR is popular. Shoot a Tavor and you'll appreciate the gas system from the AR. Try to re-chamber a G3 in the new hot caliber and you'll understand why it lost out. Every gun has its fanboys, but the AR is dominant in the same way the US military is dominant. It's not perfect, just better than everything else combined.
Pretty much every piece of high speed kit you're thinking of is attached via picatinny rail. Which I'm sure you know has nothing to do with the design of the AR as a platform. The US Army could have stuck with the slightly updated magazine fed Garand as a platform and you'd still have the same sort of kit hanging off it. Carry handle gooseneck mounts and underbarrel grenade or shotgun mounts you could claim exclusivity to the AR platform if you wanted I suppose.
The Warsaw pact side rail dates back to N variant AKMs that holds and returns to zero with non-garbage tier attachment mounts pretty simply. It's easier for me to swap between two mounts with different optic combos on them on one of my AK patterns than setting up two optic combos on a picatinny rail with indexing and having to QD each optic. (Say an LPVO to a red dot + magnifier and back again, at least the magnifier doesn't need QD but it's appreciated when swapping.) Personally speaking I don't get gassed out of my x95 with the factory port cover. Sure it matters for suppressing and mag dumping but that also applies to the AR platform. The CETME was originally built for 7.92x41, was rechambered to 7.62x51 but has been scaled down to 5.56x45 and 9x19 so the delayed roller lock system is not that difficult to rechamber. With the roller system there's a bit more tolerance for different pressures since it's not a gas system at all. The stamped metal receiver weight and wear and tear on the rollers having to be checked with calipers are major draw backs of that platform. It doesn't drop in swap but even with the split receiver design of the AR you're not jumping from 5.56 to 7.62 with the same lower. In a slightly different timeline where the BATFE wasn't focused on full auto conversions, different AR uppers would have been considered different firearms and for good reason what with the whole matched bolt, barrel and tuned gas system being integral components. The threaded screw-in barrel is an actual design upgrade compared to pressed trunnion barrels but that serviceability come at higher per-unit costs of having to thread that end of the barrel. The MCX platform does one better on that score of course by using trunnion pin-like captive clamping screws.
That virtuous cycle is my point. The US military could have standardized on literally any rifle design and most of what makes modern ARs attractive would apply all the same. The AR is dominant in the same way the US military is dominant because the US military is dominant (plus a side helping of foreign aid in the form of selling ARs for cheaper than any country could produce a competitor).
Meh, we disagree. I think the AR is dominant because the US has a civilian gun culture with disposable income. No military in the world would put the time and money into iterating a system like the American Gun Nut.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link