this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

News

23310 readers
3512 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
JonsJava@lemmy.world
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
0
A surge of illegal homemade machine guns has helped fuel gun violence in the US (apnews.com)
submitted 8 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Communities around the U.S. have seen shootings carried out with weapons converted to fully automatic in recent years, fueled by a staggering increase in small pieces of metal or plastic made with a 3D printer or ordered online. Laws against machine guns date back to the bloody violence of Prohibition-era gangsters. But the proliferation of devices known by nicknames such as Glock switches, auto sears and chips has allowed people to transform legal semi-automatic weapons into even more dangerous guns, helping fuel gun violence, police and federal authorities said.

The (ATF) reported a 570% increase in the number of conversion devices collected by police departments between 2017 and 2021, the most recent data available.

The devices that can convert legal semi-automatic weapons can be made on a 3D printer in about 35 minutes or ordered from overseas online for less than $30. They’re also quick to install.

“It takes two or three seconds to put in some of these devices into a firearm to make that firearm into a machine gun instantly,” Dettelbach said.

top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BrotherL0v3@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ultimately, guns are not very complicated machines. I'm making a semi-automatic rifle in my home office right now out of stuff you can get at a hardware store & some 3D printed parts, and I'm amazed at how simple it all is.

A lot of proposed gun control feels like trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Even states with hefty assault weapon bans like California and Maryland still have plenty of legal loopholes allowing people to own semi-automatic guns, and gun manufacturers are finding more all the time. I honestly think that anything short of straight up banning the sale of gunpowder will have a temporary at best effect on gun violence, and do less than nothing at worst.

The fact of the matter is that gun control bills at the federal level will cost a lot of political capital. A federal challenge to the 2nd amendment will rally conservatives in the same way that the recent overturning of Roe caused a surge for liberals. This is to say nothing about enforcement: it's a common position among gun owners that they would simply refuse to comply with a gun confiscation / surrender, and I believe a significant chunk of them would follow through with that. See the recent ATF rules about pistol braces for an example of mass non-compliance.

So, we can fight the uphill battle of gun control for perhaps marginal returns, or we can try to address the things that drive people to violence in the first place. And I'm not just saying "muh mental health" either; we need to address housing costs, healthcare costs, education costs, wages stagnating behind inflation, broken-windows policing, the war on drugs, the mainstreaming of far-right propoganda, the decay of public schooling, white supremacy, queerphobia, misogyny, climate change & doomerism, corporate personhood, and a fuckload of other things making people angry and desparate and hopeless enough to kill people & themselves.

I firmly believe that addressing the material conditions that create killers will prevent more murders than any gun control bill, especially in the USA.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is to say nothing about enforcement: it’s a common position among gun owners that they would simply refuse to comply with a gun confiscation / surrender, and I believe a significant chunk of them would follow through with that. See the recent ATF rules about pistol braces for an example of mass non-compliance.

Then they need to be arrested. Noone should be trusted with guns and other dangerous weapons or machines if they deliberately break the laws surrounding the ownership of them. We don't let people drive after they lost their licencse.

[–] BrotherL0v3@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The estimates for the number of pistol braces out there ranged from 3 million on the low end, to 40 million on the high end. During the grace period to register braced firearms as SBRs without having to pay the tax stamp, the ATF received 255,162 applications to do so.

Even if we take the low number & account for folks destroying or converting their firearms, we can reasonably estimate a rate of non-compliance in the hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. There is a very real possibility that arresting all those people would literally double the already ludicrous US prison population overnight. In a country that already has a worryingly militarized police force, I cannot imagine the mass arrest of millions of armed people will reduce gun violence.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I understood "not surrendering" as Police shows up and demands to be handed over the braced gun, to be met with a closed door or at gunpoint.

If people need to be told to hand it over, but comply then, i guess it can be handled with a fine. I still stand by this being a clear indication of being unfit for gun ownership though.

[–] hex_m_hell@slrpnk.net 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Any officer enforcing this would be killed and most cops would just outright refuse to enforce it anyway. There's a logistical problem of how this would even be done.

I lived in a town with maybe five cops for it and the three surrounding towns. Cops would to on several hour patrols, so if you called 911 at the wrong time it could take an hour for the police to actually show up. They knew about meth cooks in the area and they left them alone because the cops knew they would wind up dead and no one would ever find them.

Now, the whole population of the area was a few thousand people and most of them were armed. Now, if they couldn't deal with the meth cooks that no one liked, how exactly would they deal with the big chunk of the population that includes small business owners, members of the city council, and maybe the mayor?

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago

This sounds like a case for a crackdown by the federal police then. And even more of a reason to take illegal weapons from people, who are willing to murder police officers with it.

What you describe is practically half an insurrection already. And this sounds like the kind of area, from where exactly that could happen with enough methed up MAGAhats. So instead of the 2A helping people to protect themselves from a hostile and unlawful government it will help hostile and unlawful people to establish an undemocratic regime and abolish the constitutional order.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

No one likes the truth. But you either need to ban, no guns, all guns, or everything other than bolt action restricted rifles, break open shotguns, and single action revolvers.

There is no middle ground. Any laws that try to drive down a middle ground are doomed to failure. There is very little difference a mini-14 Ruger which typically looks like any other "hunting rifle" and an assault rifle.

[–] wjrii@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

ban... everything other than bolt action restricted rifles, break open shotguns, and single action revolvers.

Well, okay then. There's your middle ground. Even if you don't go quite that far, one of the low-key wins the gun lobby has had is in reframing assault rifle bans as bleeding heart pansies who are afraid of a Red Rider and want to ban "scary black guns" without knowing what they are.

In reality, it's simply not difficult to define what an "assault rifle" should be with sufficient certainty to make end-runs complicated, expensive, and relatively simple to nail down later:

  • Semiautomatic (or burst or full-auto, obviously).
  • Can be chambered in a round with ammunition that has energy "X" with effective range of "Y" when manufactured using materials readily available to the industry, with that term subject to regulations promulgated and revised by the ATF.
  • Has a magazine larger than "Z" rounds or has interchangeable magazines, particularly if they can be made an arbitrary size. An integrated tube or box magazine is very different from an AR-15 mag that can hold as many rounds as the product designer and materials engineer can make work, and that was specifically designed to be changed in a couple of seconds.

Those are the things that make a "hunting rifle" into one that's mostly suitable for hunting humans, regardless of what material the stock is made from.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

"We want less effective guns! Disarm yourselves!"

"The Christo-facists are taking over!"

"They be starting trains for LGBT people!"

I'm a peaceful man, I am not harmless. You keep on being harmless. It's your right and I fully support it, and I mean that. Just not for me and mine.

things that make a "hunting rifle" into one that's mostly suitable for hunting humans

Did you know AR-15s are illegal to hunt with in some states because the rounds aren't lethal enough? LOL, a .223 or 5.56 looks like a BB gun vs. a 30.06 or .308. But you're OK with the hunting rifles!

As a liberal gun nut, I'm constant looking and asking for ideas on this issue. And BTW, you have sane ideas, kinda. But they won't pass 2A muster in the courts. So keep stumping for lost causes I guess?

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

because the rounds aren’t lethal enough?

Because the goal is to kill the animal quickly with limited pain. "not lethal enough" entails every lethal wound that takes minutes and hours to kill instead of seconds. But for killing humans there is a reason why armies prefer 5.56 over .308 in most standard issued weapons.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

This reads like pig-induced hysterics.

I'm not anti-gun myself, but there are far better arguments for the anti-gun crowd to use than this.

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Calling a modified handgun a machine gun is some pretty impressive hyperbole, yeah.

[–] sexual_tomato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I mean it's a gun that fires continuously with a single trigger pull. How is that not a machine gun? Yeah it's a machine pistol that'll spend a clip in 3 seconds, but it's still a machine gun.

[–] harderian729@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It's an automatic pistol...

"Machine" doesn't mean automatic, lol.

Just use words for what they are instead of trying to replace them for shock value.

I don't expect you to do this, though.

[–] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The comparison I use for these conversion devices is it's like putting high-octane fuel in a dodge caravan and calling it an F1 racer.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Nobody is saying that putting "faster" bullets into a gun makes it fully automatic (or a machine gun) so your example is silly at best.

This is about 3D printables that fundamentally change the speed at which a gun chamber/clip can be emptied.

Do better.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

a gun chamber/clip

I've seen so many people get absurdly upset if you misnomer the place in the gun where the bullets go.

Incidentally, these same people hate pronouns.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

“Machine” doesn’t mean automatic, lol.

Machines are devices that leverage physical forces to some desirable effect. Strictly speaking, all guns are machine guns

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

It's not an anti-gun argument.

The theory is that you CAN'T regulate guns because people will just 3D print inferior copies.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Gun violence is a symptom of socioeconomic inequality and a lack of mental health care. We could ban all guns today and while I'm sure there would be a reduction in violent events, people wanting to cause harm would switch to bladed weapons (see knife crime in the UK and axe attacks in China).

[–] nikscha@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You're not completely wrong. But (1) guns make it sooo much easier to cause a lot of harm, and (2) a gun gives you so much more confidence than a knife. Also: you can run from a knife, you can't run from a gun

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

you can run from a knife, you can't run from a gun

Ahh, not handicapable, I see.

But unintended ableism aside, you'd also be surprised, if you can get upwards of 25yrd away from the shooter, they probably can't hit you for shit (doubly so if they have a glock switch, they reduce accuracy). Most criminals don't train at all, much less for distance.

[–] nikscha@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You are a bit delulu hmmm?

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, there's a reason most people who get shot, especially with handguns, are closer than 75ft: it's harder than you think. To me it's delusional how many people seem to think aim assist is real.

[–] nikscha@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago

I wasn't referring to that, I'm aware of the inverse square law.

I guess I miss interpreted your previous comment for pro-gun, my bad.

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If somebody is going to try and kill me, I'd prefer they at least break a sweat in doing so.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago

Also there is empirical evidence that people are less "empathic" the further away they are from you. Shooting someone is psychologically much easier than stabbing someone.

[–] harderian729@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The (ATF) reported a 570% increase in the number of conversion devices collected by police departments between 2017 and 2021, the most recent data available.

What's the increase in gun violence due to these weapons?

I fucking hate anti-gun reporting. It's all biased shit for tribalistic morons.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If only we could collect more accurate gun violence data.

I wonder why that's not possible?

Must be those anti-gun people.

Here's the anti-gun people making it much harder in 2014- https://www.propublica.org/article/republicans-say-no-to-cdc-gun-violence-research

Here are those gun haters doing it in 2018- https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/11/gun-violence-research-714938

And here's those second amendment ignorers doing it again last year- https://giffords.org/articles/house-gop-just-voted-to-ban-cdc-gun-violence-research/

In fact, I hear those horrible gun grabbers have been doing this since the 1990s. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/06/1235409642/gun-violence-prevention-research-public-health

Thank god for gun advocates who would never be in favor of such a thing or vote for anyone who would be in favor of such a thing!

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is actually a bit of a misrepresentation, The Dickey Amendment says they are allowed to study gun violence data, but not allowed to advocate for gun control. Congress further clarified this in 2018, because the CDC had decided that studying is too close to advocating and they were scared of getting in trouble, and earmarked $25 million for the study of gun violence - just not the advocation of gun control.

Of course, there's also no shortage of groups that are allowed to push an agenda, like Giffords', Everytown, Mom's Demand Action, etc.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The Dickey Amendment says they are allowed to study gun violence data, but not allowed to advocate for gun control.

Which gets hairy depending on who is in the White House, we "gun control would reduce fatalities" morphs from an observed statistical truth into a statement of advocacy depending on who is running the department

Of course, there’s also no shortage of groups that are allowed to push an agenda

Just always from the outside, where they can't affect policy.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but if they say "here is the gun violence data" instead, they'd be fine. Tbh your statement while it may be true does sound a little advocate-y, therein may lie your misunderstanding.

Just always from the outside,

Sure, like the NRA.

where they can't affect policy.

Ehhhh...like the NRA? Seems to me groups outside of regulatory agencies can indeed still influence politics.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but if they say “here is the gun violence data” instead, they’d be fine.

Right. Because that data can then be manipulated by cagey legislators to mean whatever they like. If the agency producing the data comes out with a clear declarative "The conclusions we reach from the data is X" it becomes more difficult for a Louie Gohmert or Sarah Huckabee Sanders to claim "Even the CDC agrees that more guns are good" without getting some kind of easy media push back.

Sure, like the NRA.

So you've got a federal agency that's forced to defer to the NRA on the question of publicly available statements on gun safety.

Ehhhh…like the NRA?

The folks with the biggest pile of financial contributors setting the standard for good gun habits makes about as much sense as telling the FDA to let pro and anti-smoking advertisement agencies argue over the safety of cigarettes.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And by that same coin some Warren or Pelosi can claim the opposite, just because the cdc itself can't advocate using the data doesn't mean others can't.

The NRA is a federal agency? So Wayne LaPierre is a government official now? News to me. Seems to me they aren't, but are in fact a real world example of a non-governmental entity affecting politics, which is supposedly not possible according to your refutation of me saying there are other groups that are allowed to push an agenda.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And by that same coin some Warren or Pelosi can claim the opposite

That's not an argument in favor of censoring the CDC. Two lies do not get us closer to the truth

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Point is, they can study, just not advocate, whether or not you agree with censoring their advocation or not.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Point is, they can study, just not advocate

Which becomes a problem when it comes time to author functional administrative policy

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

May I remind you of the subject at hand?

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/8603867

Again, despite your feelings on the matter, the common misconception that the Dickey Amendment prevents the CDC from studying gun violence is just that, a misconception, as they in fact can study gun violence, they just can't advocate for gun control.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

the common misconception that the Dickey Amendment prevents the CDC from studying gun violence

They're unable to write the "Conclusion" section of their research reports.