A surge of illegal homemade machine guns has helped fuel gun violence in the US
A surge of illegal homemade machine guns has helped fuel gun violence in the US
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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).
UK knife crime per capita is lower than that of US knife crime and US has gun crime on top of that.
There is no evidence that overall rates stay the same if gun violence gets reduced, but there is evidence that reductions in gun crime also reduce other types of violence. Meaning you're talking the opposite of truth.
https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html
It's just silly NRA propaganda without a shred of evidence for it. Just like all rhetoric against gun control.
And even if he were right, when was the last time you heard of someone in the UK stabbing a hundred people at a concert, or thirty kids in an elementary school?
Exactly.
A knife is nowhere near as dangerous as a semi-automatic weapon.
The main point is that he's completely wrong, though.
"Reductions in nonfirearm homicides were also observed," Santaella-Tenorio et al. note, "although not as pronounced as the ones observed for firearm homicides."
There's been at least one organized mass stabbing in China, I don't think everyone died but over a hundred people were stabbed by a half dozen or so attackers.
So a "half-dozen" people organized to do with knives what one American could do with a gun?
Something that in the us is called a "Tuesday", we might add.
Yes, guns are obviously much more dangerous
Cool. There are over 600 mass shootings in the U.S. every year.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/mass-shootings-days-2023-database-shows/story?id=96609874
That wasn't a rebuttal, I'm pointing out how challenging it is that multiple people need knives in order to hit the numbers a single a shooter can. It's exceptionally rare.
UK knife crime per capita is lower than that of US knife crime and US has gun crime on top of that.
Depends who you ask and comparisons like these are almost definitely flawed by how different countries do reporting.
e.g. this site says the UK has slightly more knife deaths than the US https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/stabbing-deaths-by-country/#united-states-of-america
Then you've also got to consider differences in treatment. Are there more stabbings but less deaths because they're treated better in the US? Conversely, maybe the problem is even worse in the UK but because of their health care system they're treated better resulting in fewer deaths.
Then we also need to consider repeat offenders and rehabilitation. Is the knife crime higher in the UK but repeat offenders are lower because of treatment?
There is no evidence that overall rates stay the same if gun violence gets reduced, but there is evidence that reductions in gun crime also reduce other types of violence.
Anyways, point being, this is the exact kind of statement that requires pointing out correlation does not equate to causation. In fact, this could be further evidence that guns are not the problem.
As for your source... These are the primary conclusions of the authors (direct quote):
In a comprehensive review of firearm-control legislation worldwide, we identified a range of studies examining the as- sociation between firearm-related laws and firearm deaths. Three general observations emerge from this analysis:
- The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multi- ple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries; 2) some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with re- ductions in firearm deaths; 3) challenges in ecological design and the execution of studies limit the confidence in study findings and the conclusions that can be derived from them.
I didn't read the whole thing but ... If you've got a specific page, paragraph, etc on the whole correlation thing, I'd be willing to hear you out.
From your link.
#With a death rate of only 0.08 per 100,000 people, the United Kingdom has one of the lowest stabbing death rates in the world.
The US it lists as having Stabbing Death Rate 0.6 per 100k.
I understand you're probably American and this might be challenging, but a death rate of 0.08 means there's less people getting stabbed and dying in the UK than in the US where said rate is 0.6 — almost ten times as high.
In the "table" part, you'll see United States entered twice for some reason (quality source there, eh, m8?). Both being higher places than UK, which is literally the last country on the list.
So no, hunny, it doesn't "depend on who you ask" unless you're willing to believe lying idiots.
As for your source... I didn't read the whole thing.
Yeah I know. People like you never do. Your confirmation bias is so high you read 0.08 as being higher than 0.6
The irony in your comment is just *chefskiss*
There is no science against gun control. NONE. All the science shows it works, as surely as antibiotics do.
If you don't believe that, I'm afraid you've been severely brainwashed.
Yeah no it's not. You're try to compare a place with social safety nets to a country that doesn't have any.
Trying to compare the EU to the USA for anything gun wise is pointless.
Excuses and bullshit. Zero evidence for anything you're saying. Stop perpetuating shitty NRA propaganda.
https://infogram.com/us-vs-uk-on-knife-crime-1hmr6gyrxmlo6nl
It's the guns.
Gun control works as surely as antibiotics do.
Gun control works as surely as antibiotics do.
If there's one thing the last four years have taught us, it's that there's an overwhelming number of Americans who disagree with both sides of that analogy.
Antibiotics? You mean vaccines. Two very different things. If anything, those Americans are into antibiotics too much to the point that they thought taking them would stop COVID.
If Trump told them to never take antibiotics, they'd throw them all out that day.
Lol no it's not. The UK has no where near what we have when it comes to civ gun ownership. There are more guns in civ hands than all armies combined basically. When Australia did their forced buyback they had a 60% turn in rate....they had 1mil in civ hands at that time. Do you know what 40% is of 450 million firearms? Still more than all other nations that allow their citizens to even look at a firearm.
We have a very small sub set of people who commit gun violence. Do you think they'll be the ones to turn them in? No. Because most legally cannot own them now.
Gun control works great if you have safety nets already in place so people don't turn to crime to survive.
Also the NRA can fuck off... it's always hilarious when you think you're arguing with some Republican NRA dipshit.
Never any evidence, just regurgitating bullshit propaganda, ZzZZzzZzZzzzz
Come back when you have actual science instead of this childish garbage.
https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/policy-evaluation/
What bullshit did I spew? The NRA just says mental health and gun control doesn't work. You listed a link to fucking Harvard which is known to directly make studies to say what they want. This isn't news.
I've stated that safety nets in countries with less crime in general isn't because they have less guns. It's because their citizens are taken care of. Are you really going to sit there and say this isn't true?
Suicides...guns do not magically make people more prone to suicide, this is and has always been false. Japan is one of the strictest countries on the planet for access to firearms. Yet they have a suicide rate that is far greater than ours. Are you suggesting their miniscule amount of suicides is related to their access to firearms?
Ah yes, the NRA doesn't bullshit while having no science, but Harvard is "known to directly make studies say what they want"
Thanks for saving me time in not having a conversation with a science denying brainwashed hillbilly.
You keep saying things, but unfortunately we sane people live in the real world and here we back things up with data.
All of which shows you're wrong, which makes you cry, so you think you're gonna "argue" the matter, again repeating the same childish NRA talking points.
Which this time is literally "nahh dem Haarvaard boyss are making their stoodies saying what they is thinking they are need to say". It's not like peer-reviewed science has established practices to require proof and verification right? //s
Roflmao
Man you got me I'm a minority hillbilly who follows the NRA and watches faux news. Got me.
You apparently have an issue with reading comprehension, what part of fuck the NRA did you not get?
The studies from Harvard are well known flawed. Their DGU study assumed that for a DGU to happen a shot had to be fired, this is just single example of shit data. Most DGUs the firearm is never even drawn, usually it's shown and that's enough to de-escalate the situation.
I'll ask you, how do you plan on banning and getting rid of 450+ million firearms? You going to collect them all?
The CDC used to do legit studies, but since the whole "we're going to make a link that proves guns are bad" a lot of their shit has gone down hill. The level of pressure from Bloomberg "stop and frisk" and his ilk create a lot of bullshit studies that are designed to say one thing.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.(Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.
Additionally, firearms studies often fail to note potential biases associated with measurement of outcomes not directly associated with the law in question (e.g., using victims rather than agents of violence in the assessment of CAP laws). In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes.
The ivory tower you sit in is so bright no one is able to look at it...
Trying to compare the EU to the USA for anything gun wise is pointless.
Actually, to that point, EU v US is a better comparison than "a country the size of Michigan" v US.
Here's the company America is in, worldwide, for the right to own guns.
The Czech Republic does as well. Mexico doesn't really count, it's basically impossible to get a firearm as a civ and the cartels have basically all the weapons
If somebody is going to try and kill me, I'd prefer they at least break a sweat in doing so.
Also there is empirical evidence that people are less "empathic" the further away they are from you. Shooting someone is psychologically much easier than stabbing someone.
It can be a nervous sweat if it needs to be.
Which leads to hundreds/thousands of people not dying every year due to being shot.
Even if it's only one life saved, that's great. But can't we want to fix the systemic problems that lead to gun violence as well? It also fixes a lot of other bad things that don't lead to gun violence, like homelessness, depression, preventable deaths, inadequate health care, etc.
What I'm saying is that guns aren't the problem. They make the problem worse. I'd like to see us try to fix both instead of a half measure of different gun laws.
We can do both.
You're not completely wrong. But (1) guns make it sooo much easier to cause a lot of harm, and (2) a gun gives you so much more confidence than a knife. Also: you can run from a knife, you can't run from a gun
you can run from a knife, you can't run from a gun
Ahh, not handicapable, I see.
But unintended ableism aside, you'd also be surprised, if you can get upwards of 25yrd away from the shooter, they probably can't hit you for shit (doubly so if they have a glock switch, they reduce accuracy). Most criminals don't train at all, much less for distance.
You are a bit delulu hmmm?
No, there's a reason most people who get shot, especially with handguns, are closer than 75ft: it's harder than you think. To me it's delusional how many people seem to think aim assist is real.
I wasn't referring to that, I'm aware of the inverse square law.
I guess I miss interpreted your previous comment for pro-gun, my bad.
A knife battle sounds kinda better. I'll have a greater chance to survive and some bad-ass scars.
The loser of a knife fight dies in the parking lot, the winner dies in the ambulance.
Buddy of mine (alright, coworker, but he was cool) decided to try and break up a bar fight one night, one of the guys ended up slicing his stomach right the fuck open. Like REALLY open. Was fucking wild, dude spent a long time in the hospital and never came back to work, but I did hear he was doing better so he at least did live.
Still though, point is, knife attacks are a lot more brutal than those who advocate for knives think.
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.
Knife crime in UK is still lower than knife crime in US. You've been drinking some weird kool-aid without faxt checking.
Sounds like I should stay strapped so I don't get poked
Its more like there are already hundreds of millions of guns in the US. Criminal element and the scum of society would keep theirs while the law abiding surrender theirs. Society would get worse and less safe.
But the so-called law abiding didn't surrender their altered guns, did they?
I'd say its a symptom of our police and justice system being completely ineffective at cleaning up our cities and locking away violent offenders to keep them out of society. They're more interested in milking the taxpayers for stupid shit that doesn't require any effort like traffic tickets or massive amounts of overtime for doing nothing. There's too many violent people out there and no one is doing anything to neutralize the threat to law abiding society.
🤡
Pure and unadulterated bullshit.
(Also the US has more knife crime than the UK as well).
I totally agree. The anti-gun crowd is just a bunch of useful idiots who refuse to tackle problems at their roots.
They're also usually city-folk who don't understand that people living in rural America only have guns to defend themselves. No cop is going to protect their farmhouse from robbers, lol.
So the pro gun in the US are just farmers that need to defend their farmhouse from robbers? You might want to sit down and think who the useful idiot is here.
Not too long ago here on Lemmy, someone told me that we need guns to protect ourselves from attacks by bears, mountain lions and rattlesnakes. Even in cities. They showed me a link about a bear harmlessly roaming around some suburb as proof of this necessity.
My pointing out that there have been 180 fatal bear attacks in all of North America since the 18th century, and many of those were bears in captivity, didn't help.
What's funny is that I don't ever see any "sensible" gun owners telling these people to stop helping.