If your current gunplay model is a fantasy, yet the goal of your game is to have realistic gunplay, then you will celebrate killing the fantasy model to replace it with the realistic model you strove for.
That isn't the only goal of the game.
Your personal subjective idea about what you prefer doesn't prove or disprove anything about what the game needs to meet it's goals of being a hardcore tactical meticulous representation of modern weapons and ballistics.
Furthermore, it's a logical error to try to use subjective standards of personal preference to talk about what would objectively be a good addition to a game or not - because your personal subjective idea of what you prefer may include a preference for all kinds of really bad elements.
There is no "objective" good addition to a game. "Goodness" is inherently subjective. Your desire for realism at all costs is subjective. The devs haven't said they're striving to make a military simulator. It's a game. That means that concessions have to be made to keep the experience enjoyable. Just how many concessions have to be made--i.e., how close to reality it should be vs. how streamlined the game is--is a matter of opinion. That's what we're discussing, except you are treating your opinion as fact. Please refrain from doing so in the future.
Saying "but it's just a game" or "but it's not a simulator (However you define that)" does not logically prove or disprove the merits of what I've said would make the game better and be fitting for it.
You need to be able to articulate specifically why or why not specific suggestions would or would not be appropriate for what Insurgency is aiming to be. You can't just throw out the catch-all phrase of "but it's just a game" and expect that to cover over justifying whatever your opinion is.
That's not my point. My point is that realism is not intrinsically valuable. "But it's like that in real life" is not a valid reason to include it in this game. You have to argue for how it would enhance gameplay, not realism.
Insurgency is not a simulator; it's not trying to be. It's a game with a realistic bent when doing so does not sacrifice gameplay. The lack of weapon jamming is intentional. It's the same reason we have respawning, hit points, and objectives: making those aspects realistic would detract from the gameplay experience, not enhance it.
Fun fact: the only Insurgency title with the word "realistic" or "realism" on its Steam store page description is the mod, and none of them say "simulator." According to this metric, they are striving to be intense, tactical CQB games. Sandstorm advertises itself as skill-based, yet RNG mechanics like weapon jamming are anti-skill, disrupt the flow (and thus, intensity) of the game, and encourage fighting from a distance rather than close quarters.
I agree with some of your points. More attachment options would be great. That said,
This is a game, not a simulator. We don't need more RNG; losing a gunfight because your gun decided to stop working or it fired your rounds in the wrong direction would be complete bullshit. We don't need body armor that makes people invulnerable to certain guns. Armor piercing ammo dealing less damage to unarmored people would make gunfights with those guns up to chance. What's the point of paying points and weight on armor if there's a chance it will increase the damage you take? Overheating guns would be in the best case incredibly annoying and in the worst case it would cause further undeserved deaths.
@mefirst Restricted areas directly to the side of the objective are one of the most cancerous applications of restricted areas in the game. You're literally forcing people to run straight at the point without the ability to take a more varied route. These forced bottlenecks are one of the reasons a lot of people don't bother trying to get on the objective and end up sniping.