this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024

0 points (NaN% liked)

News

29141 readers

4113 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. 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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

A surge of illegal homemade machine guns has helped fuel gun violence in the US (apnews.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

22 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 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year 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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year 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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year 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!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year 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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year 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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year 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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year 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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Point is, they can study, just not advocate

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year 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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year 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.