There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

A surge of illegal homemade machine guns has helped fuel gun violence in the US

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 ,

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.

Fuckfuckmyfuckingass ,
@Fuckfuckmyfuckingass@lemmy.world avatar

This is the truth, thanks for saying it.

GiddyGap ,

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 ,

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 ,

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 ,

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

GiddyGap ,

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

ArcaneSlime ,

'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 ,

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 ,

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

GiddyGap ,

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.

ArcaneSlime ,

Some knives are for sure designed to kill people. You cutting potatoes with a karambit or balisong? Then there’s arrows, or as I like to call them (as of this moment) shooty knives.

Furthermore, guns are technically designed “to fire a projectile” as knives are technically designed “to cut or pierce.” The issue comes up with what is being fired or cut upon, which could be legal or murder in either case.

Furtherfurthermore, yes, guns do happen to be good at killing people, and sometimes that does need to happen as unfortunate as that is. We call that “self defense.” Just so happens guns are the best tool for that job. Could I use a coin to screw in a flathead? Sure, but a screwdriver was designed to screw screws and as such is the tool I would prefer to use if I have to screw a screw.

GiddyGap ,

The lengths to which people will go to defend their tools of death. School massacres? Who cares! Bowling alleys? Who cares! Shopping malls? Not my problem! Nail salons? Nah!

Unreal.

ArcaneSlime ,

None of your listed scenarios legally count as self defense, perhaps you are confusing self defense with murder.

SkippingRelax ,

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

ArcaneSlime ,

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

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

daltotron ,

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 ,

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 ,

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

cristo ,

Mostly talking about the regular acid attacks that happen mostly to women and children

SkippingRelax ,

I’m confused, I’m from Europe but live in Australia. I read about a mass shooting in the states pretty much every week. Often children as schools seem to be a prime target.

Can’t remember last time I heard of an acid attack in Europe. Got some source for this being a regular thing and an actual problem even remotely comparable to guns in the US?

carpelbridgesyndrome ,

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

CommanderCloon ,

Straight up false

SuddenDownpour ,

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

GiddyGap ,

most

StrawberryPigtails ,

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

youtube.com/

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 ,
@tal@lemmy.today avatar

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.

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.

CleoTheWizard ,
@CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world avatar

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.

tal , (edited )
@tal@lemmy.today avatar

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 ,

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.

hex_m_hell , (edited )

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.

daltotron ,

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.

tryptaminev ,

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.

Then they need to be arrested. Noone should be trusted with guns and other dangerous weapons or machines if they deliberately break the laws surrounding the ownership of them. We don’t let people drive after they lost their licencse.

BrotherL0v3 ,

The estimates for the number of pistol braces out there ranged from 3 million on the low end, to 40 million on the high end. During the grace period to register braced firearms as SBRs without having to pay the tax stamp, the ATF received 255,162 applications to do so.

Even if we take the low number & account for folks destroying or converting their firearms, we can reasonably estimate a rate of non-compliance in the hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. There is a very real possibility that arresting all those people would literally double the already ludicrous US prison population overnight. In a country that already has a worryingly militarized police force, I cannot imagine the mass arrest of millions of armed people will reduce gun violence.

tryptaminev ,

I understood “not surrendering” as Police shows up and demands to be handed over the braced gun, to be met with a closed door or at gunpoint.

If people need to be told to hand it over, but comply then, i guess it can be handled with a fine. I still stand by this being a clear indication of being unfit for gun ownership though.

hex_m_hell ,

Any officer enforcing this would be killed and most cops would just outright refuse to enforce it anyway. There’s a logistical problem of how this would even be done.

I lived in a town with maybe five cops for it and the three surrounding towns. Cops would to on several hour patrols, so if you called 911 at the wrong time it could take an hour for the police to actually show up. They knew about meth cooks in the area and they left them alone because the cops knew they would wind up dead and no one would ever find them.

Now, the whole population of the area was a few thousand people and most of them were armed. Now, if they couldn’t deal with the meth cooks that no one liked, how exactly would they deal with the big chunk of the population that includes small business owners, members of the city council, and maybe the mayor?

tryptaminev ,

This sounds like a case for a crackdown by the federal police then. And even more of a reason to take illegal weapons from people, who are willing to murder police officers with it.

What you describe is practically half an insurrection already. And this sounds like the kind of area, from where exactly that could happen with enough methed up MAGAhats. So instead of the 2A helping people to protect themselves from a hostile and unlawful government it will help hostile and unlawful people to establish an undemocratic regime and abolish the constitutional order.

hex_m_hell ,

Lol, yeah, the FBI that’s been cracking down on the left for 100 years while ignoring the Klan? That’s who you’re taking about? They would rather join the insurrection. Who do you think these cops are?

They already won. That’s the point.

BrotherL0v3 ,

I still stand by this being a clear indication of being unfit for gun ownership though.

I appreciate that you’ve been a good faith interlocutor so far, but I wanna push back on this just a little more.

The current rules governing SBRs in the United States were established in the 1930s in anticipation of an outright ban on handguns. The thought was that “sawed-off” or short-barreled rifles would be a way for people to circumvent the ban. And, because the law enforcement thinking at the time was distinctly classist, the mechanism for keeping these guns out of the hands of criminals was not an outright ban but a ludicrously high tax, in the neighborhood of $4500 in today’s money.

But that ban on pistols never materialized. So now, we’re left with a nearly 100 year old vestigial law that doesn’t really serve much of a purpose: short-barreled rifles aren’t any more deadly than full-length rifles (they tend to fire the same bullet louder and slower), and they aren’t any more concealable than handguns. There really isn’t an obvious public good that is served by these laws, and their enforcement gives away that the ATF understands that on some level: basically no one is ever charged for just having an unregistered SBR, it’s almost always a rider-on to a different crime or an excuse for a cop to fuck you up if they don’t like you.

Enter pistol braces. Ostensibly, they are a device that assists shooters that have lost the use of one of their hands to stabilize an AR pistol with the forearm of their one good hand (and to be clear, they serve that purpose well). However, some people notice that they happen to be shaped in a way that provides a lot of the function that a stock would, and begin using them on AR pistols as a way of getting the ergonomics and aesthetics of an SBR without paying the additional tax and waiting months for approval.

And for a really long time, the ATF was okay with this. Pistol braces were specifically allowed. That was, until a few years ago, the ATF decided to… Change their mind? “Re-interpret” existing rules was I think what officially happened. No new laws were passed, no democratic process took place, and no clear and present danger was being addressed. They just kinda decided “Hey these are illegal now, you have X days to comply”.

Does aquiescing to that “interpretation change” have anything to do with being a responsible gun owner? To my mind, whether someone complies with that or not says more about their obideience to authority / fear of consequences than it does their responsibility or danger to society. There is no inherent moral good to following the law, and history is filled with responsible people who flout pointless or harmful laws.

daltotron ,

short-barreled rifles aren’t any more deadly than full-length rifles (they tend to fire the same bullet louder and slower), and they aren’t any more concealable than handguns.

You know, I would push back on this a little bit. It’s not really a necessity that they’re more lethal than rifles, and more concealable than handguns, they can still do plenty of damage while occupying the middle category.

Handgun cartridges usually travel at below the necessary 2100 fps required to create permanent hydrostatic wound cavities, which means they need more shots on target to do a similar amount of damage. Unlike sawed off shotguns (which I think are registered as destructive devices? idk), which tend to be unwieldy to fire, especially at range, an SBR can be fitted with a suppressor, and has the potential to fire hotter and lighter loads capable of defeating level 3+ body armor, unlike a handgun. Probably not at the same time as a suppressor would be used, but, dealer’s choice, I guess. All of this is in a package that can potentially be carried, somewhat easily, in a large to mid-sized coat along with spare magazines. Unlike a normal rifle, which might require something like a larger trench coat, or poncho, or what have you. SBRs are also going to be much more usable at range compared to your conventional handgun, it’s sort of along the lines of an advanced PDW in that respect, with maybe a slightly larger form factor.

So, if we’re kind of, thinking about the possible attack vectors that this could be used for, I think it’s understandable why federal law enforcement might be a little bit more concerned about this, compared to long rifles, handguns, or shotguns, which occupy more distinct niches that are perhaps a little bit easier to safeguard against with conventional tactics. No comment on the pistol brace thing, that was kinda stupid, but the SBR ban doesn’t make absolutely no sense, as long as you’re evaluating it from a very particular perspective.

Garbanzo ,

the SBR ban doesn’t make absolutely no sense, as long as you’re evaluating it from a very particular perspective.

A perspective that can’t see bullpups, apparently

ArcaneSlime , (edited )

To that point, the people like to cite Australia’s gun “buyback” program as a success…they only got about 20% of the guns. Now, you and I both know American compliance would be lower than that, but let’s use that number for a second and apply it anyway. With 600,000,000 guns in this country, we’d get 120,000,000 guns taken leaving 480,000,000 guns. Whooooo.

Furthermore, while gun owners have dropped, guns per person has increased, and there’s a burgeoning black market run by organized crime created by this ban. There also have been mass shootings since port arthur, and more mass killings without guns than that, too. Sure, they have “less than the US,” but the success of that program is vastly overstated.

cristo ,

Logged gun ownership has dropped. You can still buy a gun off the grey market and never fill out a 4473

ArcaneSlime ,

Afaik Australia does not have ATF form 4473.

cristo ,

I thought you were talking about America in the second half of your post. Gotta go back to reading comprehension class I guess

ArcaneSlime ,

Ah lol it happens!

Welt ,

20% of 600,000,00 is 120,000,000, not 1,200,000!

ArcaneSlime ,

Ah shit I done misplaced a comma! Let me fix that, thanks!

hex_m_hell ,

In the early 1900’s Roosevelt sent federal officers to try to assess and deal with a form of slavery called “peonage” that was pervasive in the South. These officers were shot at and ultimately chased out. Roosevelt gave up on enforcing the law.

The US government has failed multiple times to enforce laws that law enforcement agreed with. Overwhelmingly, law enforcement does not agree with outright firearm bans. Why do you believe that firearm owners could be arrested for refusing to give up firearms? Like, from a logistical perspective, how would that work exactly?

SkippingRelax ,

Why every time someone is trying to explain to americans that what you have is not normal, is fixable, and it has been fixed somewhere else there’s always some bullshit excuse like once in the 1900 hundreds their one thing happened once so there is no possible solution.

Europe doesn’t have that. Australia had a problem with gun culture and it was fixed after one mass shooting that shocked the country. theguardian.com/…/it-took-one-massacre-how-austra…

I totally expect someone to come up with but but but US is different, because of the above: bullshit excuses. And because I post that story a lot when gun restrictions are discussed. Yes the US is different, start thinking about a similar solution, you sent a fucking man on the moon in the 1960, you can do this too.

hex_m_hell ,

Fixing US gun violence is trivial from a policy perspective. You tax bullets at an extremely high rate while also creating a social welfare system like Europe. This restricts the ability to execute violence while also addressing some of the biggest causes. But it’s impossible to implement that because right wing terrorism is the point.

Right wing terrorism isn’t a problem with America. It is America. It’s how the system is supposed to work. It is the point.

Right wing terrorism keeps people traumatized. It ensures that anyone proposing a social safety net would be murdered. It is the extrajudicial extension of the oligarchy that controls America. What the government can’t do, right wing death squads do instead.

If you stop mass shootings, you will destroy America. It isn’t being stopped because it is intentional. It isn’t being stopped because both parties, and, more importantly, the oligarchs who control them, benefit from it.

If you think you can stop gun violence in the US, you fundamentally do not understand what the US is. The KKK has been deeply involved at all layers of government across the US for generations. Today Aryan Brotherhood infiltrates police departments across the nation. The violence is the reality of America, the thing you think is America is just a facade.

America is colonial white supremacy maintained through terror, where guns are the primary tool of that terror. America is not normal, it’s a two party dictatorship pretending to be a democracy. America is the problem, it cannot fix the problem anymore than Nazi Germany could have fixed their antisemitism problem.

SkippingRelax ,

Here you go. Another person that tells me it cannot be fixed, just it is for a new and different reason/excuse this time. I’ll add you to the list, I also have a new excuse now!

hex_m_hell ,

Ok, so you, who have absolutely no context on the situation, keep being told that you’re wrong by people who have context on the situation, and your responses is to record all the ways you’re told you’re wrong so you can gloat about how you keep getting told you’re wrong by the ignorant people who actually have lived their entire lives in the place you know nothing about? Cool.

It’s kind of like you’re listening to the 5 blind people describe an elephant over the phone and you’re like, “I have a cat, therefore you also have a cat. You need cat litter and everything you’re saying is dumb.”

America for Europeans is either Hollywood, major cities, or Europe with rednecks. You fundamentally do not understand the context. You keep comparing to Europe and Austrian, but those models don’t work. Europe enclosed the commons generations earlier. It’s not possible for Europeans to comprehend America.

I’ve driven for 6 hours straight with the radio on scan and not even found a signal in more than one part of the US. There are vast areas of nothing with no law and no possibility of control. The vast majority of the US is unpopulated. The closest analog would be Australia or Canada.

Except that Austria and Canada never had an economy that relied on chattel slavery enforced by “organized milita.” That’s what the “well regulated milita” is in the second amendment, it’s slavers. Slavery and genocide are essential to the US in a way they aren’t in any developed country. If you want to compare the US to something, you need to look at Brazil.

The US is more like a developing nation or a dictatorship than a democracy the way you think about it.

Americans have all heard the same things over and over again. Your arguments are old and bring nothing new. So what is it exactly you’re trying to do here? What is the point if first hand information will change your articles of faith? Are you just trying to feel superior? Because coming in to a place, knowing nothing about it, and telling people they’re doing everything wrong is a pretty old school European thing to do and it really isn’t convincing anyone.

SkippingRelax ,

Ok, so you, who have absolutely no context on the situation, keep being told that you’re wrong by people who have context on the situation, and your responses is to record all the ways you’re told you’re wrong so you can gloat about how you keep getting told you’re wrong by the ignorant people who actually have lived their entire lives in the place you know nothing about? Cool.

Pretty much. And it’s bullshit excuses conflicting with each others, so yeah pretty fun. You guys have no idea what you are talking about, keep making up different convoluted reasons.

All while ignoring the obvious one gets ignored. It’s the fucking guns, the sooner you get onto it, the sooner you sort out this mess.

Or keep thinking that it just can’t be solved and spent time on lemmy philosophising why it can’t. Fine with me either way I’m pretty safe.

hex_m_hell , (edited )

I can’t save you from looking like an arrogant idiot if that’s what you want to do. Have fun with your life.

SkippingRelax ,

Look I’m sorry it’s just that I argue about gun control in the US a lot and you wouldn’t believe the bullshit I have to read.

Checkout my comments. Since we started, I had to deal, in another thread, that guns in the US cannot be banned or farmers would be robbed. And another person is trying to argue that if there weren’t guns, you’d be riddled with acid attacks like Europe, apparently, is.

In fairness you make some good points about issues in the States. It’s just that you mix up things a bit too much and you make it all a bit conspiracy. Keep it simple, work on limiting access to the thing that is used for shooting, and you might see a reduction in, well, shootings.

Other countries have done it. I know you think it’s not the same, but it’s not like you are working on a better solution anyway, might be worth a try?

daltotron ,

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.

Corkyskog , (edited )

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 ,

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 ,

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 , (edited )
@tal@lemmy.today avatar

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 , 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:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46

founders.archives.gov/documents/…/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 ,

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 ,

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 ,

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 ,

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 ,

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 ,

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

shalafi ,

“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 ,

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 ,

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.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I’m sorry, the right also tried the Nazi gun control argument and it was just as bullshit as when they argued it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument#C…

Queer people are in serious danger. Getting into firefights won’t help them.

ArcaneSlime ,

Where’s politicalagitator, who swears I’m wrong about this because gun laws are effective?

SnotFlickerman ,
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Maybe, just maybe guns are actually the problem.

AlbertSpangler ,

deleted_by_author

    •
    skyspydude1 ,

    You know they’re not illegal in the majority of states, right? The main thing limiting access is cost, but even then it’s no more than a used car. Yeah, you have to go through the NFA, but that’s hardly more difficult than a normal NICS check, just pay the $200 and wait for the okay.

    TopRamenBinLaden ,

    Eh, even Mac10s are going for 12k USD or so, nowadays, and that’s not exactly the most quality of fully automatic guns. They are a little closer to the price for a new car, I guess.

    AlbertSpangler ,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    AlDente ,

    Yes please!

    Son_of_dad ,

    Sure yeah, THAT’S the problem

    girlfreddy OP ,
    @girlfreddy@lemmy.ca avatar

    Right now the Second Amendment is untouchable to regulate and expanding its coverage.

    snooggums , (edited )
    @snooggums@midwest.social avatar

    The problem is the convert to automatic things and not the motivation to kill a bunch of people that has been apparently increasing and almost always carried out with legal and far too easily available non-converted semiautomatic weapons.

    It is the scary looking things.

    Edit: added text in bold since I left out an obvious detail

    guylacaptivite ,
    @guylacaptivite@sh.itjust.works avatar

    Why not both?

    snooggums ,
    @snooggums@midwest.social avatar

    That is what I’m saying, it is both motivation and the already easily available semiautomatic guns that are the problem. The scary automatic conversions are a distraction because they sound and look scary, even though they are used in very few mass shootings.

    Just like silencers and the ‘assault weapons’ baloney that didn’t address the majority of gun deaths which are caused by pistols even after suicides are excluded.

    guylacaptivite ,
    @guylacaptivite@sh.itjust.works avatar

    Gotcha, last sentence sounded a little bit pro-gun though hence my response. I still think the ease of access is the main issue, by far. I would probably be dead if I was american as I could’ve easily got a cheap 9mm to off myself during the worse times. It was easier to reach out than to buy a glock and I seriously think it saved my life.

    snooggums ,
    @snooggums@midwest.social avatar

    “It is the scary looking things.” Sounds pro gun?

    Weird.

    guylacaptivite ,
    @guylacaptivite@sh.itjust.works avatar

    Kinda dismisses the real criticism people have with guns yeah. They are not advocating against them simply because “they look scary”.

    snooggums ,
    @snooggums@midwest.social avatar

    I’m saying the people who are making and enforcing laws are focused on the scary looking parts of guns instead of the actual problems of motivation and prevalence of guns as a whole. Instead they ban cosmetic things like in the 90’s assault weapons ban while doing nothing about the actual problems like pistols in general and how easy it is for people to acquire them.

    Automatic conversions are already illegal and were never that hard to do before 3d printing. Yes, they need to do something, but it doesn’t address the underlying issue of mass shootings and why people are doing them and automatic weapons don’t tend to increase the number of casualties in most mass shootings.

    guylacaptivite ,
    @guylacaptivite@sh.itjust.works avatar

    I understood that the first time yeah. And I think you agree with me since you edited your comment to further explain your idea. I’m not contradicting your argument, I agree with it and appreciate that you addressed my criticism. I think it’s a hot enough topic to warrant being a bit less open to interpretation, especially in text form.

    snooggums ,
    @snooggums@midwest.social avatar

    Thank you for the feedback!

    Rivalarrival ,

    The problem is the convert to automatic things and not the motivation to kill a bunch of people

    Don’t know where you’re going with the rest of your comment, but that part is the sine qua non of our violence problem.

    snooggums ,
    @snooggums@midwest.social avatar

    Without the prevalence of guns, the motivation isn’t as much of an issue. Prevalence of guns isn’t a huge deal if there is a low motivation to use them to murder people. Both are necessary for the issue to be as bad as it is in the U.S.

    Rivalarrival , (edited )

    Without the prevalence of guns, the motivation isn’t as much of an issue

    I think the normalization of murderous intent, (and how it manifests itself in lesser forms of violence) is a much bigger problem than murder.

    I think that suicide is twice as large a problem as homicide.

    I think suicidal ideation (and how it manifests in depression and self harm) is a much bigger problem than suicide itself.

    I don’t think anyone with the motivation to murder or kill themselves is “cured” of that disease by taking away the guns. I think it masks the symptom, while the disease festers and grows.

    I think we need to deal with the social/cultural issues long before we ban every object that can be used by a sufficiently motivated person to cause harm.

    Mirshe ,

    Can we not do both? Metaphorically - and literally - stem the bleeding? Sure, people will switch to knives, trucks, whatever else. However, as countries who have heavily regulated firearm ownership recently, like Australia, have shown, violent crime goes down significantly once it becomes much harder to access firearms. Some of this does actually boil down to psychology - there’s a heavily-studied mental disconnect between pulling a trigger to shoot at a human being, vs physically assaulting a human being with a knife or blunt object with intent to kill. This says nothing of the fact that knife wounds, blunt force trauma, whatever, are all MUCH easier to deal with on a medical level, and the fact that you can’t stab or beat 30+ people to death in a short span of time the way you can shoot people with a semiautomatic, magazine-fed rifle.

    Rivalarrival , (edited )

    This says nothing of the fact that knife wounds, blunt force trauma, whatever, are all MUCH easier to deal with on a medical level, and the fact that you can’t stab or beat 30+ people to death in a short span of time the way you can shoot people with a semiautomatic, magazine-fed rifle.

    Taking guns affects gun crimes.

    Addressing the societal/cultural/economic issues affects guns, knives, bombs, cars, bludgeons, and barehanded crimes.

    Knives are used to kill three times more often than rifles. For ever 100 rifle killings, there are another 300 knife killings. Consider these 400 crimes, and take all the rifles. All of them. Assume 100% effectiveness: all rifle crimes are eliminated, and none of the rifle-criminals switch to knives. Best case scenario, 25% effectiveness; 300 of those 400 are dead.

    Now, focus on the socioeconomic conditions that lead people to kill. Focus on the murderous intent. Your social/cultural approach only needs to have 25% effectiveness to achieve the same result. When we target the whole of the problem, we don’t even have to be very good at it to achieve phenomenal results.

    To answer your question, yes, we can do something useless and pointless, and address the societal issues, and work the actual problem.

    What we can’t do is just the useless, pointless something, without addressing the social issues, and expect anything to actually improve.

    We must enact universal healthcare. We must fundamentally address economic disparity with a punitively high top-tier tax rate like we had until the 1970’s and 80’s. We must address food insecurity, housing insecurity.

    We must soften or eliminate criminal sanctions for non-violent offenses, and we must throw away the key for habitual violent offenders, a

    SkippingRelax ,

    before we ban every object that can be used by a sufficiently motivated person to cause harm.

    Just guns, you don’t hear about mass bludgeoning with candelabra. It’s always guns, no need to bring in what aboutism, the US has one problem when it comes to murderous intent, and it’s guns.

    Sure let’s work on mental health too, but keep your eyes on the ball, it’s the guns.

    Rivalarrival ,

    Did I say mental health? It’s not mental health. It’s socioeconomic despair. It’s a societal issue, a cultural issue.

    You want to see a strong correlation with violence? Look at age of motherhood. The mean age of women when they have their first child.

    Australia and Europe commonly wait until they are in their 30’s to have children. The average child in these areas is raised by mature, economically stable adults. Murder rates in these areas are a tiny fraction of the world rate.

    Compare to Central and South America, where the average mother is 18 to 22, and the murder rates are large multiples of the world rate.

    The correlation holds true across nations, across regions, across cities, across demographics. If you know the age of a motherhood in a given area, you can predict the homicide rate in that area. If you know the homicide rate, you can predict the age of motherhood.

    Contrast with guns, where the nation with by far the highest access to guns in the world has a homicide rate well below the world average. The rural areas of that nation have near universal gun ownership, yet the violence is clustered in impoverished areas, where the majority of the population doesn’t actually have guns.

    Turns out it’s not actually the guns. It is the motivations of the people carrying them. When those people are figuratively beaten into submission, living paycheck to paycheck with no legitimate prospects, no way to get ahead, saddled with debt, no equity… Violence is not a gun problem. It’s not a mental health problem. Violence is what happens when you systematically subjugate people, and some of them decide they don’t need to obey. Violence is a socioeconomic problem. It is a cultural problem. More specifically, it is a problem of corporate culture, where people do everything they can to take everything they can from everyone they can, and give back as little as they can to as few as they can.

    We need universal healthcare. We need to eliminate food insecurity. We need to eliminate housing insecurity.

    We need to restore the protections we had against 19th century robber barons. Specifically, we need to reinstate a confiscatory top-tier tax rate. The only people that businessmen hate paying more than workers is the IRS. A confiscatory tax rate forces them to choose between the two.

    We need to kill the concept of “renting”. We need to create a owner-occupant credit against residential property taxes, to hold them where they are, or lower them slightly for anyone living in their own properties. A “landlord” who wants that tax credit will have to issue a “land contract” (rent-to-own arrangement, recorded with the county) or a private mortgage to secure the occupant’s credit against that property’s taxes. The occupant will then be paying a fixed rate for the duration of the contract, and will be earning equity.

    It is much more feasible to fix those three factors than to enact any form of gun control, and any of those factors will reduce violent crime far more than even a total confiscation could ever hope to achieve.

    SkippingRelax ,

    Holy fuck this is a convoluted waste of words to avoid reality. Want to see a correlation? Bullet wounds and deaths, where you find the first you almost always the latter.

    But sure age of motherhood, IRS and landlords. Mate I agree you need to fix all the social issues you have over there but fuck,kids getting shot while at school? It’s the fucking guns that you have everywhere!

    When you walk in and find your kitchen flooded do you go and close the water mains or start speculating about the rate at which the snow is melting up in the mountains?

    Rivalarrival ,

    When you walk in and find your kitchen flooded do you go and close the water mains or start speculating about the rate at which the snow is melting up in the mountains?

    That’s actually an excellent analogy. Here, we have the river overflowing its banks, and you’re busy trying to find the water main. Can’t hurt to shut off the water main, eh? Every little bit helps?

    Simpleton.

    SkippingRelax ,

    So instead you sit down, get on lemmy to show your deep knowledge of river banks through hundreds of words while thr rest of the house gets wasted.

    All while your neighbours, the ivilised world, is fine and is trying to convince you to close that fuclimg mains and check your pipes.

    But no, you sit there doing nothing to fix the problem and try to convince everyone it’s the river banks… and calling them simpletons!

    Rivalarrival , (edited )

    All while your neighbours, the ivilised world, i

    The rest of the civilized world has universal fucking healthcare. The rest of the civilized world has sensible welfare policies. The rest of the civilized world has far less income and wealth disparity.

    The rest of the “uncivilized” world, that shares our privatized approach to healthcare, that shares our lack of poverty controls, that shares are obscene degree of economic disparity, but has adopted European-style gun control also has far higher rates of violent crime, gun crime, homicide, and gun homicide than even the US.

    You’re looking at the carp swimming in my refrigerator. You’re wondering how you’re going to get him crammed back in the faucet he came out, and looking at me like I’m the idiot for suggesting that it might just be the river rather than a plumbing problem.

    SkippingRelax ,

    Don’t get me wrong, you need to sort that shit too. Universal care etc.

    But I’m still here scratching my head with the rest of the neighbourhood that hasn’t been affected by this mysterious river. And remember it’s just your kitchen flooded at the moment. You sure you don’t want to shut off the water mains?

    We are concerned, we have this theory that your gun problem might be caused by, you know, guns.

    Rivalarrival ,

    But I’m still here scratching my head with the rest of the neighbourhood that hasn’t been affected by this mysterious river.

    That’s pretty much what I’m getting at: you don’t even know the river exists, let alone the fact that there are people living near it. You just assume that the US is living in a mountaintop commune, because you and everyone you actually know lives in one.

    We aren’t.

    The only nation in the Americas that actually qualifies for your little club is Canada. The rest of North, Central, and South America is living in a dank river valley.

    SkippingRelax ,

    Of course, of course you guys are special. Want to go check your water mains now or continue this rant that no one can understand you?

    Rivalarrival ,

    Gonna go with simpleton, final answer.

    SkippingRelax ,

    LOL fine, me and the other neighbours at some point will stop worrying and telling you you have a leaking pipe, and will start laughing at you calling us simpletons while your kitchen floods and you do nothing

    Scubus ,

    Yes, without guns it is slightly harder to kill people. Now, how do you plan to take their guns when they can make them in a day on a 3d printer?

    Bruh this was already hashed out in his post. Not even a comment, literally in the post you responded to original post.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •