Little bit of clickbait: See conclusion for cryptographic token suggestion:

With the recent shooting in Florida, we are again paralyzed on both sides in regards to gun control. And even more so, we are blasted with false facts on both sides trying to push their views on us without providing the necessary information base to have an informed opinion. Part of this is because people don't care about learning potential facts that dismiss their own understanding of the topic, i.e. ignorance. Another reason is because both sides have have deeply rooted beliefs that cannot change. So we MUST compromise if we are to come to any solution at all.

The AR-15 and assault rifles in general, are central to the topic of guns.

While the focus on the AR-15 is unjust, it is a principal component to undertanding everything right and wrong about gun rights in the United States, so I'm going to take some time to discuss the AR-15.

Ultimately, my goal is to give you a balanced understanding of why this problem is so hotly debated. The information you read here are both opinion and fact and I will make it a point to indicate it. But before I go any further, I want you, the reader, to understand that I like guns. I enjoy recreational shooting. I like to hunt, although I do not participate in gun season (I prefer bow hunting). I also love target shooting, and am a strong proponent of self defense through martial arts training and to an extent using guns and knives for self defense. So let's start with some FACTS.

The AR-15 was meant to kill people

Gun enthusiasts highlight this as an obvious fact that is driven by the OPERATOR of the weapon, but the real message here is that the AR-15 was intended to be easy for the operator to shoot humans effectively. The mechanics of all semi automatic guns are essentially all the same.

How it chambers the next round is inconsequential. How it fits in the users hands/shoulder is also inconsequential. The rifle was simply meant for combat, similarly there are guns created for the sole purpose of competition use only. Going back to the AR, it is designed for low ammunition weight (so you can carry more of it on your BODY), low weapon weight (for long duration missions), ease of reloading (for fire fights), ease of shooting (accuracy), ease of cleaning (extended operations), durability and to use a cartridge (gun lingo for bullet) that is strong enough to kill someone.

Immediately, we can remove some of these design aspects such as ease of cleaning, low ammunition weight and durability out of this discussion.
The important factors are:

- Ease of Shooting
- Ease of Reloading

The AR-15's ammunition, the .223 Remington/5.56 NATO round was meant to kill people effectively.

The 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington differ in power, but it is only noticeable to experienced shooters, otherwise the difference is not worth mentioning. The ammunition used in the AR rifle is designed to be lightweight, so more ammo can be carried into combat. This becomes inconsequential to mass shootings because a shooter could still carry enough of the next heaviest bullet with zero change to their agenda.

If we talk about lethality, the 5.56 is designed to cause greater damage by tumbling and fragementing upon impact, making the wounds larger and therefore increasing the potential blood loss. I could go on about the ballistics of the cartridge, but the fact is that the .223 is *** ONE OF THE SMALLEST*** and most effective rifle calibers on the market. Anything smaller is inefficient at killing human sized targets , and everything else is literally too powerful for shooting at people bigger in a combat situation using rifles at close ranges.

The AR-15 ammunition is number 13 in the photo comparison below of all common ammunition types.

I bring this up because people have suggested that we ban the AR for its bullet size because it's so easy to shoot and while it is true, I want you, the reader, to really think about this comment. What is it suggesting? If we ban ammunition types, what stops someone from engineering another bullet?

What criteria of law do you use to ban ammunition?

The only argument for this piece of information is to say, perhaps we need an inverse graduated caliber license system.

Ban all assault weapons

This is a strange one to talk about because assault weapons are classified by the government via cosmetic features that do not change the function of the gun. This is largely because the people who write these laws are not familiar with guns, and do not discuss the problem with professionals. Part of this is also because the CDC is not allowed to study gun violence and therefore, they literally do not know anything about guns.

In most jurisdictions, an assault weapon is typically classified as having these two main features:

• Pistol Grip
• A detachable magazine that holds an excess of anywhere from 5 to 10 rounds.

This photo is based on California's definition of an Assault Weapon, they include some other features, but the main one is the pistol grip and the magazine.

So banning an AR will not solve the real problem because there are plenty more guns that fit the bill such as a Ruger Mini-14, or any of the dozens of guns that look completely different from an AR but function just like one.

My point here is to say that targeting a gun by name does not fix the problem, because the AR-15 is NOT the problem, but you have to understand why it is part of the problem. The real problem people have with the AR is that the reload system is EASY. But there is a problem with this, let me show you some videos from youtube:

This is an experienced shooter with the AR reload system.

This is an inexperienced shooter with the AR reload system.

This is an experienced shooter using a non magazine type rifle

The point I'm trying to make here is that these bans are all pretty much useless since we will almost always find a way to engineer our way around laws that do not address baseline problems. In this case, the "problem" is the reload speed.

Unexpected to most, all studies have shown that the US has a gun problem simply because we have TOO MANY GUNS.

You can go read the studies yourself but the US isn't any more prone to violent video games, or mental health issues, we just have access to a lot of guns. So the way we address it is by reducing the number of guns, or making it more difficult to access, but that in itself brings us to a TOTALLY different topic, which is constitutional rights.

The legality of controlling guns

Most people forget that the same laws that gives us *** THE SECURITY OF LIBERTY***, are the same laws that you would have to shut down in order to put licenses on gun ownership. Understanding how law works is fundamental to understanding why it is so difficult to put licenses on guns.

The two main problems with gun control, on the legal side, is establishing a law that is constitutional under the 2nd amendment and then allowing it to pass, wait for someone to sue, and allow the Supreme Court to inturpret the law.

Here is the zinger, when the 1994 Violent Crime act, which included the assault weapons ban, occurred, several challenges were made against it under the commerce clause and not under the 2nd amendment because you were still allowed to buy weapons that were not named under the 2nd amendment, such as the Ruger Mini 14.

What do we do now?

As a engineer, I would first test the studies by enacting another 10 year assault weapons ban to see if we can simply reduce the number of guns on the streets. But I honestly think this is a quick bandaid to a problem that needs a deeper look at the law.

What are some solutions?

Perhaps we need an age ban on semi-automatic rifles. Perhaps 30 years old because we would have developed the proper history to fill the NICS system if we have one, and perhaps we would be mentally stable enough at that age to be responsible to own one. Someone would challenge this under the 2nd amendment, but the reality is that we are not stopping you from buying another gun, such as a bolt action. You can still own shotguns, competition level .22LR guns, pistols etc. Nearly all of the school shootings occur with young males who are troubled. At the young age that we are in high school, our minds are completely screwed up with the way society functions. Perhaps we just need age as the first level defense.

The second level would come through stronger requirements to submit data to the NICS system.

The third level would be a volume restriction to purchasing semi automatic rifles with detachable magazines but that would require a temporary store of data, which in itself is hotly debated.

CONCLUSION - CRYPTOGRAPHIC TOKENS?

I hope this gives you a better understanding of where we stand with guns. I've been thinking of how cryptographic tokens can be used to secure the data for gun owners that would require you to register your information with a gun dealer (which you already do when you fill out the NICS form) and then be given a digital wallet where coins can be deposited each time you buy a gun. The token would serve as an anonymous database that can only be linked back to your purchases without knowing who you are. Currently, the only way the government knows you own a gun is if they subpoena the dealer for the serial number.

This means that cryptographic tokens are not meant to be currency, instead they serve as a security of data, which is likely how security protocols such as proof of work was first established.