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.
gun thread, lemme hit you with some easy unsourced stats real quick.
About a third of all people who attempt suicide will never attempt it again, about a third will attempt it pretty repetitively, and about a third fall somewhere in the middle, where they engage in multiple attempts, but stop after the 5th or whatever. This is to say that suicide is mostly a spur of the moment decision and most people who attempt suicide aren’t completely committed to it as a course of action. It’s mostly a decision that’s made as a result of being kind of fed up and believing you have no other options in your life, it’s not a conscientious, committed kind of philosophical position, most of the time. I think there’s some sort of minor study about a bridge in, I wanna say canada, where they set up a net underneath one bridge, and another bridge about 20 minutes away didn’t have a net set up underneath it. Still, the suicides went down by about the amount you would expect to see, had you just eliminated all the suicides taking place on the bridge with the net. The people committing suicide weren’t willing to drive about 20 minutes to dive off of a different bridge, it was just something they sort of did in the moment.
So, that’s all a pretty good indication that limiting gun access to the suicidal would be a relatively helpful thing to do. The most counterargument I’ve heard against this is that, regardless of that, we should still have free access to guns, and they shouldn’t be regulated by the government, because our right to guns trumps everyone else’s right to not be successful in killing themselves. I don’t think I need to tell you that this is a kind of disgusting viewpoint.
I think we can also probably say that the same would be true of gun crime broadly. There are multiple factors going into gun crime, like housing prices, redlining, drug trafficking, mental illness, sure. One of these factors is also guns. Taking away any of these factors, including guns, not just lead to a reduction in gun crime, but would probably lead to a reduction in crime overall. A reduction in crime overall with no substitution in the form of increased knife violence or other forms of violence or crime.
It’s much harder to secure your illegally owned high value property, in drugs, if it is more expensive and harder to access a gun. If it’s more expensive, that eats into your profit margins. This alone would probably cut down on violent gun crime, and drug related violent crime more broadly.
I also feel like I’m taking crazy pills whenever people talk about how if you limited access to guns, people would just switch over to knives, and knives would be equally as effective. No they wouldn’t! You have to be extremely fit and trained properly to wield a knife effectively, and even then, two or three people can easily overwhelm you and jump on top of you. People can more easily outrun you. If you wanted to try and make the leap from one technology to the other, I would think people would compare guns more to IEDs, since there’s obviously more of a similarity there in terms of effectiveness, but obviously it’s much harder to secure your drugs with IEDs, or to rob someone with a pipe bomb.
The most compelling argument against gun regulations, and especially more extreme gun regulations, is that it’s really hard to get them passed, and especially at the federal level, which is what would really cut down on their trafficking. You also have a problem with law enforcement, since most law enforcement, and probably federal law enforcement, wouldn’t really be willing or effective in stripping americans of most of their guns. You’d probably see more success with something like limiting ammunition sales or gun manufacturing, but you’d obviously expect to get lobbied against pretty hard, and, at least if you were to limit gun manufacturing, you’d only expect to see results on that maybe 10+ years down the line, in decades, and, depending on how that was passed, you might just see it get repealed before you could see anything from it.
Of course, the caveat with all of that is that most americans are actually perfectly willing to conform to, and vote for, reasonable restrictions on guns. This includes universal background checks, mental health checks, wait periods, obviously limiting things like automatic capabilities and magazine size (though to what extent this limits unlawful use, I’m not quite sure). Probably at the farther end I’d guess americans might vote for requiring licensing from gun owners, and secure handling and transportation, like most european countries, which might limit unlawful use by limiting theft.
I think also lots of gun owners are straight delulu when it comes to how effective their gun might be. They come up with lots of little hypotheticals and heuristics to try and train for, but in a gunfight, it is usually the person who shoots first who wins, the person who has the element of surprise. If you’re getting robbed at gunpoint, you’ve already lost. You almost have to wield your gun like a lunatic, brandishing it at people for intimidation, in order for it to be an effective form of self-defense (this is illegal in most places). There’s also the idea that open carry can prevent crime, but that it might also mark you as an easier, higher priority target, so I’m kind of skeptical of it. Maybe it’s better for home invasions or something, but that’s not a particularly high likelihood anyways, and you have problems with wall penetration and such. Most home robbers are going to want to hit your place when you’re not in it anyways.
I’m a gun owner who carries a firearm. I think different people and areas have different needs.
There are no children in my household, fist off. If there were I wouldn’t have guns and ammo in the same house. It’s just not safe. If a child comes to my house, the ammo goes to the car.
But I live over 30 minutes from the nearest police station. We have firearms for defense from predators, invasive animals (e.g. hogs), etc… Yeah, they could be used against people, but that’s not really something we’re worried about. We don’t even lock our doors.
That being said, I do carry in town. I also have a spare set of clothing, full set of mechanics tools, a fire extinguisher, first aid kit, and an AED in the van. I like to be prepared wherever I go, and other than the AED all of those tools have come in handy in an emergency.
I don’t like going into details about the time I had to pull my gun because I hate how right-wing nut jobs seem to celebrate the fact that I needed one as justification for all the other hateful things they do. Suffice to say I was being assaulted and the gun ended the situation without me having to shoot the assailant.
Yeah - I don’t carry the toolbox or fire exringuisher my body, but a handgun is almost never necessary in a few minutes. And of course if someone breaks into my van and steals my impact wrench it’s annoying. If they steal a gun that’s much more serious.
I think we have some major work to do to cut back on violence, and some gun reforms are part of the answer. The things that I think would have a lot of impact on gun crime with minimal impact on lawful gun ownership are improving NICS and opening it up for civilian use. Right now if I want to sell a gun to a friend or relative I can’t run a check to see if they’re legally allowed to own one. This would also be the first step towards universal background checks.
But background checks aren’t enough. There need to be record-keeping laws for individual sales that are no different than those from a dealer. The idea is kill straw purchases while improving traceability, which is the biggest issue we have with the current system.
What we have now is half of a brilliant compromise. A federal gun registry is a red line that gun owners will not cross. It’s the most important necessary precursor to mass firearm confiscation, and it’s a hard no. The fight over that is why it took so damn long to get background checks in the first place.
But we want to be able to trace guns used in crimes, so we require manufacturers and dealers to track the sales. If a gun is used in a crime, law enforcement can get a warrant and go to the manufacturer who can look it up and point them to the distributor who can point them to the retailer who can point them to the buyer. It’s a system that allows any specific gun to be tracked, while preventing the government from having a registry.
The problem is that record ends at the first sale. The buyer can sell, trade, or gift that gun without a background check and without keeping a record. It’s the major way that guns illegal in a given state get there.
It also eliminates the “gun show loophole” which is a very misleading name, since it’s actually just a “private sale loophole.” Licensed dealers are still required to do a background check and 4473 for gun show sales.
Waiting periods don’t do much. Someone wanting to commit suicide can rent a gun at the range more easily, and it happens more than you think. The federal waiting period from the 80s was simply a placeholder until NICS got up and running that gave more time for background checks.
One issue that needs resolving is NICS needs to finish background checks. There are 3 standard results when running a background check: Approve, Deny, and Delay. Approve and Deny are self-explanatory. Delays occur when there’s a partial match. Since NICS just uses 3 items (name, date of birth, and state of birth) for the check partial matches can occur, especially if the buyer has a common name - it’s especially common with Hispanic last names since there’s a lot of Raul Hernandezes out there.
When there’s a delay, the gun can be sold without a response in 3 days, though more and more stores are instituting a policy that it needs an approval before the sale. This is because most Denys are initially a Delay, and sometimes (rarely) it takes a week.
But the rub is half the time NICS simply doesn’t follow up on a Delay, or they do it in 6 weeks. Any firearm transaction must be finished within 30 days of the initial background check, so if they take 6 weeks a new background check has to be started. I had a friend named David Jones who couldn’t purchase a gun from lots of dealers because NICS always took longer than 30 days to respond.
And finally the biggest issue with NICS - Identity Verification. NICS needs to be able to verify that a person exists. Right now a fake or mispelled name (whether the misspelling is in the database or on the 4473) will work 100% of the time since all it checks against is a blacklist. A $50 fake ID shouldn’t allow someone to buy a gun.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Calling a modified handgun a machine gun is some pretty impressive hyperbole, yeah.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you really think that if everyone learns precise technical gun terms that gun control arguments will change?
It would certainly help.
What is the point in making up terms for firearms that have never been used for them even by the military?
It only serves to muddy the waters and scare people.
I’m pretty sure the massive amount of gun violence is what scares people, not terms that aren’t used by the military.
In fact, from what I’ve seen, the people who really care about technical terms are the ones who want to find them to get around gun regulations or stop them from happening in the first place.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told that there’s no such thing as an assault weapon when there was an assault weapon ban in law, meaning there clearly is whether or not some people don’t accept that as a technically valid term.
The term “assault weapon” is being used by people who know nothing about firearms to refer to anything that isn’t an old bolt action these days.
Its meaningless
“Machine” doesn’t mean automatic, lol.
Machines are devices that leverage physical forces to some desirable effect. Strictly speaking, all guns are machine guns
It’s not an anti-gun argument.
The theory is that you CAN’T regulate guns because people will just 3D print inferior copies.
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).
A knife battle sounds kinda better. I’ll have a greater chance to survive and some bad-ass scars.
Keep thinking that. Meanwhile most people here wouldn’t be able to fight off someone with a knife.
It takes size and muscle, shooting the attacker takes a single trigger pull.
You may not like to hear it, but guns aren’t going anywhere. Maybe if we stop making out gun owners to be some raging lunatics. Then they may be more likely to give them up.
This is all pointless anyway.
