Gun Control

It Turns Out Rifles Are Just As Lethal Without Threaded Barrels

|

WNBC

The NBC station in New York City recently discovered that the new and allegedly improved "assault weapon" ban championed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo has not done much to make guns less lethal, since the features it prohibited are mostly cosmetic. Reporter Chris Glorioso visited Long Island gun dealer Martin Tretola, who showed him the difference between an AR-15 banned by the SAFE Act and an AR-15 designed to comply with the law: They are pretty much the same, except the legal rifle has none of the features that offended Cuomo. That means no folding or telescoping stock, no protruding pistol grip, no thumbhole stock, no second handgrip or protruding grip that can be held by a nonshooting hand, no bayonet mount, no flash suppressor, no muzzle brake, no muzzle compensator, no threaded barrel, and no grenade launcher (grenades not included). Under the previous version of New York's "assault weapon" law, a rifle could have one (but not two!) of these features.

How much difference does that change make in practice? Not much. As Glorioso notes, the modified gun fires the same rounds just as rapidly and just as accurately. NYU law professor James Jacobs, who praises some aspects of the SAFE Act, tells Glorioso the post-ban version "differs only in how it looks, not in how it functions." Leah Gunn Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, concedes that "the legal gun looks a lot like the illegal gun" and "can kill people." But she argues that some of the banned features could make a difference in a mass shooting. For example, "it is not as easy to manipulate and fire accurately [as] it would be if you had a forward-leaning pistol grip."

Glorioso adds that "some families of gun violence victims say they are frustrated by what they believe are efforts to skirt the gun control law." He quotes Joyce Gorycki, whose husband was killed in the 1993 Long Island Rail Road massacre (which was perpetrated not with an "assault weapon" but with a Ruger P-89 pistol). "Here we go again," says Gorycki. "This is what they always do. It's just a terrible thing. The gun manufacturers. I just don't understand them."

When gun manufacturers follow the government's arbitrary design decrees, they are complying with the law, not skirting it. If the resulting changes have no measurable impact on gun violence, that is the fault of the law, not the people who obey it.

NEXT: Ras Baraka Wins Newark Mayoral Race

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “it is not as easy to manipulate and fire accurately [as] it would be if you had a forward-leaning pistol grip.”

    Unsurprisingly, she’s wrong.

    1. Likely she thinks a pistol grip is “that shoulder thing that goes up”.

      1. I bet she thinks it’s the trigger.

    2. If you’re an elderly person suffering from arthritis, it might be more difficult to use.

      So the law may well have made the use of low-recoil rifles more difficult for disabled and elderly individuals. Well done, New York.

      1. Part of a hidden euthanasia project.

      2. “If you’re an elderly person suffering from arthritis, it might be more difficult to use..”

        Actually, that would be kinda funny to see a few lawyer-trolls file a barrage of lawsuits against that bill, citing the Americans with disabilities act.

  2. Damn, gorycki is a miserable shit.

  3. WIH is a “threaded barrel”?

    1. That’s how you screw the silencer on. You know when the video games drive you berserk.

      1. An example.

        Also useful for flash hiders, brakes and anything else you might want on the end of your barrel.

        1. Got it.
          So forcing the accessory mfgrs to come up with a clamp rather than female threads FOR THE CHILLUNZ!

        2. Oh shit i was thinking they meant the rifling inside the barrel in my post below…my bad.

  4. “This is what they always do. It’s just a terrible thing. The gun manufacturers. I just don’t understand them.”

    No shit, moron. Because you just want people to OBEY, and even if they comply with the law, they’r not obeying you the way you want. Fuck you, cunt. Holy fuck these people are stupid.

    1. So I was making “efforts to skirt law” when I installed seat belts in my 65 Mustang?

    2. Maybe this will help you understand: The law says the gun can’t have two or more of the forbidden features, so guns are being produced without two or more of the forbidden features.

      If the law said that cars can’t have metal spikes on the front bumper and manufacturers continued to produce cars but none had metal spikes on the front bumper, would that be just a terrible thing?

      If you don’t understand that complying with the law is legal and not terrible, maybe you’re just not very bright.

  5. And what happens when someone busts out a M1A SOCOM? With a 20 round magazine no less

    1. After the nearest 20 people to the gun have been killed by it, they sneak up on it and try to take control before it has time to reload itself.

    2. “And what happens when someone busts out a M1A SOCOM? With a 20 round magazine no less”

      Eventually, the police would show up, and in a hail of panic-fire… kill 20 innocent bystanders. Law would be re-established, procedures followed, any who filmed the resulting carnage would be arrested for illegal wire-tapping, the bootlicking press would swoon, and bro-fives would ensue.

    3. And everyone within a half-mile goes deaf. I have a friend who owns one and I despised that rifle – even though I loved the regular M14 in the military and the standard M1A1. So much louder, so much more recoil, and less accuracy.

      Shorter isn’t better.

  6. “The gun manufacturers. I just don’t understand them.”

    THAT is FUNNY! Or pathetic.

    1. What she means is she doesn’t understand how anyone could think differently than her enlightened self.

  7. Too bad someone can’t show them how long it takes to flip the wooden stock off a Ruger Mini-14 and replace it with an evil black pistol grip stock. It usually generates a spectacular deer-in-the-headlights look.

    1. The Mini-14 is one that always slips under the radar, even though it was the rifle used by Anders Behring Breivik.

      1. Very true. It’s the rifle that was used in the Montreal Massacre which resulted in the currently horrific Canadian firearms laws. And yet it has always been classified non-restricted. The standard barrel length is right on the 18.5 inch barrel minimum for semi-auto rifles to be non-restricted.

        Not complaining. Just glad those who are most in favor of gun bans know the little to nothing about firearms.

      2. With a standard wood stock it looks like a 22.

      3. The Mini-14 is one that always slips under the radar,

        Probably has to do with Bill Ruger being such a loud proponent of magazine capacity limits.

    2. Yeah, but the good old AC556(k) still whips them into a foaming at the mouth frenzy..

  8. It never ceases to amaze me how there is more news than can possibly fit into a 24 hour period which basically boils down to “People are morons”. That’s probably a valid headline for any news story these days.

  9. Geez, Jacob, don’t point out that the anti-gun nuts’ prohibition of certain cosmetic features doesn’t make “assault weapons” any less lethal!

  10. The NBC station in New York City recently discovered that the new and allegedly improved “assault weapon” ban championed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo has not done much to make guns less lethal, since the features it prohibited are mostly cosmetic.

    So the federal AWB was passed September 13, 1994. Figuring out it was useless only took reporters what, almost twenty years? I sure hope they didn’t file the story under “current events.”

    1. Apparently being a TV journalist means you act like the world was created ‘yesterday’ and everything is New and Surprising.

      Its why its called NEWS!

    1. I am troubled by this.

      Drudge seems to want to spin this as a positive court decision while NPR seems to want to spin it as a horrible one.

      Agreeing with NPR is leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

      1. I don’t get it. Pointing to newspaper articles that might have negative (but true) information about somebody is Drudge’s whole business model.

    2. Alternatively, we could get to the point of giving people a break for past offenses (except murder and the like).

    3. Fuck Europe. The internet isn’t their jurisdiction.

  11. WAIT?! ARE YOU SAYING…. THEY STILL SHOOT *BULLETS*!??!

    I THOUGHT THE LAW MADE THEM SAFE?! IT WAS CALLED “SAFE ACT”!?!

    1. The original ‘Shit for Brains – Triumph of Form Over Function and Kneejerk Power grab Act’ title was too long winded, and didn’t gain much traction in among the focus groups..

    2. More like…

      THEY’RE STILL BLACK AND SCARY LOOKING!??!

      I THOUGHT THE LAW MADE THEM SAFE?! HOW CAN THEY BE SAFE IF THEY’RE BLACK AND SCARY LOOKING!!!

  12. “Gunn Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence,

    Jesus.
    Is her partner “Browning Stoner-Garand”?

  13. That reminds me. I keep meaning to scope out a suppressor for my M1A.

    1. Silencer or flash suppressor?

      Careful, if it’s the former, while legal to own if you go through the hoops, possession of a silencer while committing a crime– ANY crime, even if that crime being committed has naught to do with a gun crime or anything involving the silencer– federal mandatory minimum of 30 years in prison.

      Own a silencer, get caught with an ounce of MJ? 30 years in the hole.

      1. Only in the case of a firearm suppressor.

        If you own an internal combustion engine (car, motorcycle, golf cart, lawn mower, generator, leaf blower, etc.) without a suppressor you get fined.

  14. Do these people realize how fucking stupid they look? Seriously, how are they not shamed into celibacy?

    1. Its New York, Jake.

  15. The kinds of ranges people use rifles to go on killing sprees has the improved accuracy of a threaded barrel ever been important?

    I guess there was those two guys right after 9/11 who sniped people at gas stations…but i think they used a hunting rifle not a semi-automatic rifle.

    1. Nevermind i confused threaded barrel with the Rifling.

  16. “”Here we go again,” says Gorycki. “This is what they always do. It’s just a terrible thing. The gun manufacturers. I just don’t understand them.”

    When gun manufacturers follow the government’s arbitrary design decrees, they are complying with the law, not skirting it. ”

    Episiarch – “Because you just want people to OBEY, and even if they comply with the law, they’r not obeying you the way you want. Fuck you, cunt. Holy fuck these people are stupid.”

    It is not just stupidity, but a huge dose of mendacity too. They want the civilian population completely disarmed. They instinctively know that their position is indefensible so they spew mealy-mouth bullshit and it becomes impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion.

    Arguing with people like that always comes down to this because they won’t be honest about what they want.

    1. She’s beyond all hope. Her husband was killed by some asshole with a pistol, so naturally she needs to spend her time banning scary looking rifles. I can’t imagine the type of evil, soulless, goat fucking bitch that would use the death of a loved one to advance their tangently related political agenda.

  17. That means no folding or telescoping stock,

    Maybe one of you lawyer types can dig out the recent Gray decision from Rochester, wherein the judge (before dismissing assault weapons charges against Gray on the grounds that none of the state’s expert witnesses could agree on what those terms mean) was rather unkind to this verbiage.

  18. OT: I’ll just leave this here

    Ahh yes.. Our heroes in blue?, winning hearts and minds, one child at a time

    1. The heroes got home safely at the end of their shift. It’s all that matters.
      Those kids are lucky they didn’t get killed.

  19. I read through the Amnicus briefs filed in the NYSPRA lawsuit against the SAFE act last night. Two I rather liked those from Remington and ESAC (I think that’s the acronym, the NYSPRA site is blocked at work). Most of the rest (Alabama, the NYS Sheriff’s association, the Pink Pistols, the NRA, etc) reiterated the same points about how the District Court misapplied precedent, used the wrong standard of scrutiny and screwed up the standard of scrutiny he said he used. The main appellant brief covers most of those points fairly well anyway. But think for a moment about the coalition of Amici against the law. It’s just about as across the board as you can get. To top it off, there are no Amicus briefs in favor of the act. The state hasn’t even filed their own brief yet. Schniderman is stuck, as this is an election year and he’s on the block. With all the Anti-Cuomo agitation over the law, I don’t think he wants to get his name too attached to defending it, but he is still a Democrat Party soldier. So he’s trying to pretend it’s not there at all.

    1. Is the New Yorkers Against Gun Violence website also blocked at work? If not, you’ve got a 1A case on your hands, and watch your government-sector union ostracize you.

      1. I don’t know I can’t bring myself to look up an organization like that.

        (And I mistyped the acrionym it’s NYSRPA, NYSPRA is a Public Relations Association).

        1. “I don’t know I can’t bring myself to look up an organization like that.”

          Goddammit!.. dupe a gullible co-worker into doing it for you… like a goatse link. Exploiting the vulnerable is a fundamental tenant to (L)libertarianism, act like it…

          1. It might work for you libertarians… But I still maintain that I’m not one.

            1. Your co-worker won’t know that…

  20. Soooo … is it possible for a manufacturer to make a rifle that complies with the law, but is designed so that you can buy aftermarket parts that add on the illegal accessories?

    Say, a rifle having a conventional wooden stock, attached with screws or whatever, that you can unscrew and then install an aftermarket folding or telescoping stock?

    1. Clearly, that would be immoral… the only common sense choice here, is to have such a firearm welded shut, and encased in a solid concrete brick, to deter those who would act upon such impure thoughts…

    2. Every AR they sell with a fixed non-telescoping stock can just have the stock replaced in a few minutes (along with an appropriate buffer tube).

      The same is generally true of other firearms; stocks are designed to be replaceable, because they break, and because they’re typically in the way or repair or maintenance work (broadly speaking).

      In other words, pretty much every compliant gun is already inherently modifiable to be non-compliant – it’s just that doing so would be itself a crime. No effort required on the part of manufacturers.

      Pretty much any gun can be either easily or by hand-modification, depending on the arm, be made to have a folding or telescoping stock; likewise pretty much any gun can have its barrel(s) replaced with threaded ones, or have an existing one threaded, or have various accessories pinned, welded, soldered, or clamped on the end.

    3. The Ruger Ranch Rifle:

      1. Make sure it’s not loaded.
      2. Pop open the trigger guard and remove the trigger assembly.
      3. Remove the wooden stock.
      4. Replace it with your evil black pistol-grip barrel-shroud forward-grip adjustable stock of choice.
      5. Insert the trigger assembly.

      Takes less than two minutes.

  21. When gun manufacturers follow the government’s arbitrary design decrees, they are complying with the law, not skirting it. If the resulting changes have no measurable impact on gun violence, that is the fault of the law, not the people who obey it.

    The clowns who write these laws must be continually frustrated that they can’t just pass “An Act banning anything that anyone might feel could be a weapon”.

    1. Effective immediately… under the new “crime prevention and child safety act” -all Americans who are not members of law enforcement, on active duty in the military, or.. ahem.. politically connected, must wear socks inside oven mitts on their hands at all times. Anyone caught without them shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by 3-5 years in federal prison…

  22. “Stop obeying the law and just stop making guns because I’m emotional!”.

    Thanks. No.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.