this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
291 points (87.6% liked)

News

23311 readers
3594 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
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BrotherL0v3@lemmy.world 75 points 8 months ago (30 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.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 20 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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

This is basically what they've done in most European countries. Plus, they have very strict gun laws and no gun culture. All of that equals close to no gun violence.

[–] cristo@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Yeah but the violence we do see in europe is typically widely spread knife crime and chemical attacks on people. The most complicated and unique terrorist attacks I have ever seen happen on European soil.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'll take knife crime any day of the week over gun violence.

Can't kill 60 and wound more than 400 from a hotel room window with a knife.

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

On the other hand I'd much rather get shot than stabbed or splashed with acid.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's not like the US doesn't have all that on top of the gun violence.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

'Course, the last time a dude threatened to stab me by pulling a knife on me, I threatened to shoot him by pulling out a gun on him in return, and he decided the best outcome for all would be to walk away.

He was right, I didn't get stabbed, he didn't get shot, and I was able to walk into the hell that was "pandemic Walmart" unscathed, as a direct result of me being armed.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

So, what you're saying is that Europe should just get a lot of guns to get rid of people threatening knife violence?

Dude, there's a reason why the US has lots of gun violence. It's because of the easy access to guns.

No guns = no gun violence.

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

No I'm saying no knives = no knife violence.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (3 children)

That's just not how it works, because knifes are not specifically designed to kill people. Guns are. Some guns are even designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Did everyone clap and called you my hero before you woke up?

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago

Har har, no but your mom went home with me.

Actually I was there for bread so I just bought bread after.

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

I see this sentiment a lot, and I mean, realistically, would you? Getting splashed with acid mostly equates to a flesh wound, maybe with side effects like blindness, or muscular numbness. There's necessary skin grafting and things of that nature, sure. But that kind of attack, generally, strikes me as having much less lethal potential compared to, say, a shooting or a stabbing. If you get a hole poked in your heart, you're basically guaranteed dead within a minute, and if you get a hole poked in many of your major organs, arteries, veins, you could bleed out within the next couple minutes.

Compare that to an acid attack, which, granted, is extremely unpleasant as it burns away at your nerve endings, but would seem much less likely to be lethal, and has a much more straightforward path to recovery, in lots of cases.

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

The likelihood of dying making horrible injuries more bearable. Do I want to live a long life horribly disfigured with constant pain due to nerve damage, or just get shot and have it be done and over with?

As for stabbing, if they hit a vital area that would make it less unfortunate, but just the idea of getting stabbed is deeply unpleasant, whereas the emotional reaction to getting shot is "well, I should've moved out of the US"

[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Like once in a decade chemical attacks, as opposed to weekly school shootings? Tough decision eh?

load more comments (2 replies)

The stabbing rate in the UK for example is lower than it is in the US per capita. So the idea knives replace guns doesn't really seem to hold

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm European and we don't do near enough on like half of those points.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago
[–] Fuckfuckmyfuckingass@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

This is the truth, thanks for saying it.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

honestly think that anything short of straight up banning the sale of gunpowder

There's hand-loading, and I strongly suspect that gunpowder is not the hardest component to manufacture.

[–] Takumidesh@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

Potassium nitrate and sulfur.

Gunpowder is the easiest part. The casing will be the hardest as you need pretty tight tolerances, but anyone who cares could have 50 trash cans full of cases in a week for a lifetime of reloading.

And if you don't have cases for reloading, you can always use a case less design, then it's just a matter of sourcing the projectile.

Of course there is always black powder, ball and cap, etc.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

I have heard it before that the hardest part is getting access to reliable chemical primers. But I think if you were looking at all available options on an equal footing, you'd probably be more likely to go with some sort of electronic ignition system, or something of that nature.

[–] hex_m_hell@slrpnk.net 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Guns are ~~harder~~ easier to manufacture than cartridges. Honestly, when civil war finally does break out it will be ammunition, not guns, that the government restricts access to because that's way easier to control and way harder to manufacture. Reloading still needs brass and primers, and those are hard to make for anything outside of a shotgun.

Edit: said exactly the opposite of what I intended to say.

[–] StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

Even that won’t have an effect for long

https://youtube.com/@styropyro?si=pHDZxrbvONLxENCa

https://youtu.be/crBqplCIZoA?si=chovNs5707OHq7mU

Energy weapons may not be far enough along now to be of much practical use, but ban gunpowder and we will see what horrors are possible.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 5 points 8 months ago

Also, while air rifles aren't really as effective today as chemically-powered guns, they were used by militaries in the past, and if you increase the pellet size, they can put out quite a bit of energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jTnrjVxtVo

That's a 20mm pellet. The muzzle energy from that is about four times NATO 5.56, what a typical issue rifle will put out.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

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.

I don't even think that would really help all that much. You would maybe increase the relative complexity required to build a gun, but I think you'd still get plenty of people who are able to utilize improvised home explosives in their homemade firearms designs. Of another variety, you'd also probably see a rapid influx and growth of the airgun market, which is already pretty far along in it's ability to substitute and even outclass normal firearms, in some respects (mostly in cost, and consistent shot over shot accuracy, rather than in "combat efficacy", depending on what you mean by that). I'm also sure you'd see designs that adapt more mundane forms of explosives. Propane strikes me as a particularly good candidate, but you could also probably just use normal gasoline as a propellant, hydrogen peroxide, H2O2, butane, you could probably even use wood gas.

I think there are too many machine shops in america to realistically stop america's position globally as a firearms manufacturer, in a vacuum. As you say, you'd need to more combat the external factors going into it, rather than trying to kind of, try to make sweeping bans around it. Especially as those sweeping bans can be more selectively applied to particular communities, to increase their criminalization, as we've seen time after time.

The caveat I would place around that, is that handguns are a pretty terrible suicide vector, I think it's something like half of all gun deaths are suicides. Of suicides generally, about a third will never try again, and it's a spur of the moment decision, and about a third will repetitively try over and over, with the remainder falling somewhere in the middle of multiple attempts. So preventing guns from falling into those, at least third, of hands, could be a good form of regulation. Though, that point is somewhat unrelated to the conversation at hand, here, I just think it's a pretty good point I don't hear people bring up a lot.

[–] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

Frankly even if the bans did work, people wouldn’t want them. The US does not care about gun violence because the people in power are pandering most to people unaffected by it since they’re who vote in the primaries. The US cannot and will not address its gun violence in the near future and it will not address the fundamental needs of its people if conservative leaders continue to get elected.

Basically, the US is probably screwed and is due for increased violence one way or another. Especially since we’re all allowed to own a deadly weapon and yet a good portion of us aren't even literate.

load more comments (24 replies)