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.

  • BrotherL0v3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    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.

  • harderian729@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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

  • masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • sexual_tomato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.caOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                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.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            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

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.