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.
It’s an automatic pistol…
“Machine” doesn’t mean automatic, lol.
Just use words for what they are instead of trying to replace them for shock value.
I don’t expect you to do this, though.
Are raspberry Pis not computers because they’re tiny?
Are small electric cars not cars because they can only carry two people?
Are cube satellites not satellites because they’re tiny?
If I’m being fired at rapidly, I’ll be saying “help, someone is shooting at me with a machine gun!” It would be funny if someone popped in and said “ackshually…”
It’s crazy the mental gymnastics the anti-gun crowd puts them through, but it’s another reason not to take them seriously.
Who said I was anti-gun lol?
Do you really think that if everyone learns precise technical gun terms that gun control arguments will change?
No, but it means there can be a discussion where each side is able to communicate effectively.
Words have meaning. If we are to have a stark discussion, at the beginning we need to come to agreement on what words mean so that either side does not misunderstand each other.
Adapting your own language to your audience is a thing. It’s like if you speak to room of professionals, you will use the common professional language. Yet speaking to the general public you will use a language that is generally understood.
But trying to force the general public to understand professional language should be a lesson in futility.
The onus is on you to understand and speak to your audience. Don’t blame them for your lack in that.
*onus
“Ownness” is also a word, but refers to the sense of self, rather than possession, and doesn’t fit in this context.
Thanks. Corrected now. :)
It’s important to call things what they are. I know of magazine capacity laws written so poorly they dont even touch belt fed weapons and for the low low price of 1500 bucks you can convert the AR you already have into a belt fed weapon and constantly fire rounds until you run out of belt or the guns melts. And that’s just a part called the upper reciever which legally is not a gun. You can get it shipped online no questions asked, no checks required. Knowing what you’re talking about makes a difference. This is how loopholes get made.
It would certainly help.
What is the point in making up terms for firearms that have never been used for them even by the military?
It only serves to muddy the waters and scare people.
I’m pretty sure the massive amount of gun violence is what scares people, not terms that aren’t used by the military.
In fact, from what I’ve seen, the people who really care about technical terms are the ones who want to find them to get around gun regulations or stop them from happening in the first place.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told that there’s no such thing as an assault weapon when there was an assault weapon ban in law, meaning there clearly is whether or not some people don’t accept that as a technically valid term.
The term “assault weapon” is being used by people who know nothing about firearms to refer to anything that isn’t an old bolt action these days.
Its meaningless
And yet “assault weapons” were still banned. So it sounds like it worked out until that ban expired.
Still didn’t stop mass shootings or gun crime in general.
I’m in favor of stuff like universal background checks and meaningful regulations, but vague definitions are problematic: Even when the “assault weapon” ban was in place, there was no shortage of functionally identical long guns available that were not classed as “assault weapons”.
Much like with passing Internet laws written by ignorant people, gun laws written by ignorant people can result in laws that give people a false sense of safety and worse.
We need to start electing people who are willing to admit they don’t know everything but are willing to learn before passing laws on any given subject, otherwise these problems aren’t going anywhere. Taking money out of politics it the other part of that, but both of these things are uphill battles.
It sure helped.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration
“Universal” background checks are a terrible idea that sounds pretty good at first glance. The only way they could be reasonably implemented is by assuming a check was performed until conclusively proven that it was not.
For example, I was once surprised to realize that the serial number on the gun I had been carrying for several weeks did not match the serial number on my purchase records. Turns out that I had inadvertantly swapped my Glock 17 for my brother’s identical Glock 17 at the range at some point.
My brother and I had conducted a transfer without a background check. A completely inoffensive, functionally irrelevant transfer, but a transfer nonetheless. To actually be considered “universal”, the kind of “transfer” we performed would have to be unlawful.
I can provide dozens of examples of guns innocently trading hands without actually constituting a sale. Suffice it to say, inoffensive, usually temporary exchanges of possession between trusted individuals comprise the overwhelming majority of all transfers. “Universal” (Mandated) background checks just cast FUD on these innocent exchanges.
We already almost have a near-universal background check system, which would effectively criminalize all transfers to prohibited persons, without criminalizing any inoffensive transfers. We have already banned transfers to prohibited persons, but that ban is not effective, because it can only be enforced in cases where the transferor “knew” or “should have known” the transferee was a prohibited person.
The problem is that there is no system in place for the transferor to actually know. NICS is not available to the general public. So, any transferor can just claim “I didn’t know, and couldn’t have known”, and he is exonerated.
Implement feasible, publicly-accessible access to NICS, and that transferor can no longer make that claim. He could have known, and he should have known, so whether he actually knew the buyer was a felon is irrelevant. The state merely needs to prove that if a background check had been done at the time of transfer, it would have flagged the buyer.
So this is the problem of knowing the actual jargon vs the natural language people use.
Jargon is often prescriptive and needs to be taught. A word means a specific thing because people who know the subject well use it to describe that thing.
But natural language doesn’t work that way. You’ll note that the dictionary definition for “machine gun” includes “broadly: an automatic weapon.” Dictionaries have to be “descriptive,” because they’re helping someone understand what an average person means when they say a phrase.
There are countless examples of words beginning to mean other things in natural language. My pet peeve example is the fact that “podium,” a word containing the root meaning “foot” that is clearly about a raised platform one stands on, in the dictionary contains “see lectern.” Because a fuckload of people (especially in North America) call lecterns “podiums.”
Anyway my point here is that the average person considers any automatic weapon a “machine gun.” That may not be the technical definition of “machine gun,” but it is the natural definition. So when people use it to describe an automatic handgun they aren’t doing this for “shock value,” they’re doing it because they don’t know any better and because to them, that’s what the word they’re using means.
Gasoline generators don’t generate gasoline.
Machines are devices that leverage physical forces to some desirable effect. Strictly speaking, all guns are machine guns
The comparison I use for these conversion devices is it’s like putting high-octane fuel in a dodge caravan and calling it an F1 racer.
Nobody is saying that putting “faster” bullets into a gun makes it fully automatic (or a machine gun) so your example is silly at best.
This is about 3D printables that fundamentally change the speed at which a gun chamber/clip can be emptied.
Do better.
I’ve seen so many people get absurdly upset if you misnomer the place in the gun where the bullets go.
Incidentally, these same people hate pronouns.
Gun owner, pedant, and father of a trans man here. Did you just make a bigoted assumption?
It’s a shibboleth.
The distinction is simple, straightforward, widely taught, broadly known. Using it correctly is an immediate indication that one has acquired some very basic knowledge of the subject matter. Using it incorrectly is an immediate indication that they have not.
If someone with a gun calls it a “clip”, I am immediately wary. They haven’t learned very much about guns, and certainly not from responsible instructors. They might have a gun in their possession, but they haven’t proved they are gun owners. Until I can determine their skill level, I won’t be turning my back on them.
A “magazine” charges the firearm; a “clip” charges the magazine.
That’s it. That’s the distinction. A magazine puts ammunition into the action of the gun, where it is fed into the chamber and fired. A clip is used to put ammunition into the magazine, where it waits to be fed into the action.
It is one tiny little factoid about guns that immediately demonstrates the speaker’s familiarity - or ignorance - of the subject matter. It is a shortcut toward determining their credibility.