In the last several years, a proliferation of tiny pieces of plastic and metal is fueling a spike in semi-automatic handguns converted to fully automatic fire.

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.

  • Corkyskog
    99·
    9 months ago

    No one likes the truth. But you either need to ban, no guns, all guns, or everything other than bolt action restricted rifles, break open shotguns, and single action revolvers.

    There is no middle ground. Any laws that try to drive down a middle ground are doomed to failure. There is very little difference a mini-14 Ruger which typically looks like any other “hunting rifle” and an assault rifle.

    • wjrii@lemmy.worldEnglish
      86·
      9 months ago

      ban… everything other than bolt action restricted rifles, break open shotguns, and single action revolvers.

      Well, okay then. There’s your middle ground. Even if you don’t go quite that far, one of the low-key wins the gun lobby has had is in reframing assault rifle bans as bleeding heart pansies who are afraid of a Red Rider and want to ban “scary black guns” without knowing what they are.

      In reality, it’s simply not difficult to define what an “assault rifle” should be with sufficient certainty to make end-runs complicated, expensive, and relatively simple to nail down later:

      • Semiautomatic (or burst or full-auto, obviously).
      • Can be chambered in a round with ammunition that has energy “X” with effective range of “Y” when manufactured using materials readily available to the industry, with that term subject to regulations promulgated and revised by the ATF.
      • Has a magazine larger than “Z” rounds or has interchangeable magazines, particularly if they can be made an arbitrary size. An integrated tube or box magazine is very different from an AR-15 mag that can hold as many rounds as the product designer and materials engineer can make work, and that was specifically designed to be changed in a couple of seconds.

      Those are the things that make a “hunting rifle” into one that’s mostly suitable for hunting humans, regardless of what material the stock is made from.

      • ArgentRaven@lemmy.world
        142·
        9 months ago

        That will never fly as a “middle ground” because the second amendment was never written as a hunter’s law. It’s a Revolutionary, shooting-at-people law that didn’t take into account advances in technology because they didn’t matter.

        What they had different were people upset with a government across the ocean and soldiers in their homes, and the only people upset with the colonists were slaves that weren’t allowed guns, education, or freedom. So that made the problem we face way less likely.

        Any middle ground like you suggest would take a constitutional amendment and mass adoption, and the ones with the guns that aren’t likely to shoot up the place (Jan 6th excluded) are not keen on either.

        • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
          61·
          9 months ago

          That will never fly as a “middle ground” because the second amendment was never written as a hunter’s law. It’s a Revolutionary, shooting-at-people law…

          For whoever downvoted the parent poster, he’s correct. Let me quote Federalist Paper #46, authored by James Madison, the guy who drafted the US Constitution (written during the public debate for the states to accept the US Constitution). He was specifically arguing that the federal government would remain subordinate to the public because the American public was armed, that you couldn’t have an autocrat seize power and end American democracy by force, couldn’t have someone take things back to the sort of monarchy that was common in Europe at the time:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46

          https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0261

          The only refuge left for those who prophecy the downfall of the state governments, is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the states should for a sufficient period of time elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the states should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the state governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield in the United States an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprizes of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone, they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition, that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures, which must precede and produce it.

          The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the state governments; who will be supported by the people.

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          1·
          9 months ago

          Ultimately the second amendment is in fact the problem.

          You’re right, it was designed as a “Revolutionary, shooting-at-people law”, but it’s woefully inadequate in that role now. It doesn’t allow you to own a tank or an attack drone, and an assault rifle isn’t going to be enough to stand up against a modern military force. So basically, as a revolutionary law the 2nd amendment is fucking useless at this point.

          I say either double down on the intention of the 2nd amendment, or get rid of it. Either amend the constitution to allow civilian use of destructive devices (including tanks, artillery, missiles, 2000 lb bombs, etc) or kill the second amendment entirely. And hey, just go with whichever seems like a better idea to you, no judgement.

          • Garbanzo@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            9 months ago

            an assault rifle isn’t going to be enough to stand up against a modern military force.

            Doesn’t take much more than that, ask ISIS about it

            • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
              1·
              9 months ago

              No, not really. ISIS was not able to stand up against a modern military… They were able to stand up to a very degraded Iraqi military. The military capabilities of Iraq are pretty substantially different from the military capabilities of the US.

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          1·
          9 months ago

          the 2nd amendment always took into account the advances in weaponry by tying it to state militias. The goal was to keep the feds from disarming the states, not to allow everyone to buy a personal nuke.

          • ArgentRaven@lemmy.world
            11·
            9 months ago

            At the beginning of the revolutionary war, militias, minutemen, and even the Continental army relied on soldiers to bring their own weapons from home. They would never have held off British troops long enough to have a revolution at all otherwise. This was an 8 year war, and only after 1776 did they begin to supply the Continental army with arms from France on the regular. Spain as well.

            It was absolutely their intention to have regular citizens armed. With nuclear weapons? No. Be serious. With small arms able to be used by one person. To my knowledge, private citizens didn’t have access to cannons at a reliable quantity to count on them in battle.

            This is what our flawed founding fathers experienced first hand and amended the Constitution with.

            • Fedizen@lemmy.world
              11·
              9 months ago

              Look either you believe the constitution applies to new weapons or it doesn’t. Be serious.

      • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        113·
        9 months ago

        “We want less effective guns! Disarm yourselves!”

        “The Christo-facists are taking over!”

        “They be starting trains for LGBT people!”

        I’m a peaceful man, I am not harmless. You keep on being harmless. It’s your right and I fully support it, and I mean that. Just not for me and mine.

        things that make a “hunting rifle” into one that’s mostly suitable for hunting humans

        Did you know AR-15s are illegal to hunt with in some states because the rounds aren’t lethal enough? LOL, a .223 or 5.56 looks like a BB gun vs. a 30.06 or .308. But you’re OK with the hunting rifles!

        As a liberal gun nut, I’m constant looking and asking for ideas on this issue. And BTW, you have sane ideas, kinda. But they won’t pass 2A muster in the courts. So keep stumping for lost causes I guess?

        • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
          42·
          9 months ago

          because the rounds aren’t lethal enough?

          Because the goal is to kill the animal quickly with limited pain. “not lethal enough” entails every lethal wound that takes minutes and hours to kill instead of seconds. But for killing humans there is a reason why armies prefer 5.56 over .308 in most standard issued weapons.

          • KuraiWolfGaming@pawb.social
            21·
            9 months ago

            Meanwhile, 5.56 is plenty if you are accurate.

            And, the US military is currently adopting the MCX Fury as their new standard issue rifle.

            That thing fires the .277 fury cartridge that is way better at armor penetration than 5.56 ever could be.

            And the reason .308 isn’t used as much for most military issued rifles is more to do with recoil and capacity than anything to do with the ballistics.

            A .308 would be far better for killing literally anything than 5.56, but is mostly for use in semi-auto marksman rifles and some snipers. Where accuracy of first shot matters more than volume of fire.