291
submitted 8 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world

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
[-] m0darn@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago

I'm not the person you're replying to, but: there are defense tools that are simultaneously less lethal than firearms, while actually more effective than firearms for self defense.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 months ago
[-] m0darn@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago

There are lots of situations where fire arms aren't good for defense.

They need to be aimed.

They need to be loaded.

They are not allowed in some places/They have specific transportation requirements which preclude them from bring brought to some places.

They can kill/ grievously wound uninvolved people.

They aren't effective for summoning help.

Someone wielding one in self defense can be reasonably misidentified as an aggressor.

Not every defence device has these deficiencies.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 months ago

Not every defence device has these deficiencies.

So which do you propose?

Pepper spray can deal permanent damage to one's sight and sense of smell, and affects everyone nearby.

A shocker can kill a person with heart problems.

A traumatic pistol may just not be enough, it's like a device to punch a person in effect.

A knife requires training and won't help against a stronger attacker likely.

[-] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago

I didn't mean to suggest that there was something without any of those drawbacks, so I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

I'm not going to propose a one size fits all solution.

But I think people should consider the situations they are most likely to find themselves in, and make considered decisions.

I don't think guns are likely to be the best choice very often.

[-] CaptainProton@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Can you name viable alternatives, and what's your personal plan?

[-] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago

Copying my reply to someone else because much of it is relevant here too.

I didn't mean to suggest that there was something without any of those drawbacks, so I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

I'm not going to propose a one size fits all solution.

But I think people should consider the situations they are most likely to find themselves in, and make considered decisions.

I don't think guns are likely to be the best choice very often.

I'm not that interested in discussing what I do personally for safety, because every situation is unique.

[-] CaptainProton@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

My question is for someone passionately arguing against keeping a gun for self defense, with the implication being it's law, and so regardless of training and care and personal circumstances.

The pro-gun crowd doesn't just blanket recommend guns for everyone in every situation either, so my question is specifically about how those worst case defensive scenarios are envisioned by people who eschew the idea of personally owning guns.

[-] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I live in Canada, it's illegal in Canada to carry anything outside your home for the purposes of defense against humans. (But if you have something with you for a different reason you're allowed to use it). This makes my personal preparations somewhat irrelevant to Americans.

My question is for someone passionately arguing against keeping a gun for self defense, with the implication being it's law, and so regardless of training and care and personal circumstances.

That's not really me. However, I do think that guns aren't a very good defense investment. I think a lot of other, more practical, preparations get overlooked because guns are fun.

I have a colleague that lives in Buffalo NY. When the pandemic hit, he and his wife bought 10 guns. When I spoke with him in 2023 they had never fired any of them.

The pro-gun crowd doesn't just blanket recommend guns for everyone in every situation either, so my question is specifically about how those worst case defensive scenarios are envisioned by people who eschew the idea of personally owning guns.

What you're saying about blanket recommendations is not really true. My boss, a real actual person that I respect (for other reasons), believes that every adult in the country ought to own a gun.

But again, I'm not who you're looking to engage, I'm not opposed to the idea of personally owning a gun.

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

News

23275 readers
3490 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