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.
If only we could collect more accurate gun violence data.
I wonder why that’s not possible?
Must be those anti-gun people.
Here’s the anti-gun people making it much harder in 2014- https://www.propublica.org/article/republicans-say-no-to-cdc-gun-violence-research
Here are those gun haters doing it in 2018- https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/11/gun-violence-research-714938
And here’s those second amendment ignorers doing it again last year- https://giffords.org/articles/house-gop-just-voted-to-ban-cdc-gun-violence-research/
In fact, I hear those horrible gun grabbers have been doing this since the 1990s. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/06/1235409642/gun-violence-prevention-research-public-health
Thank god for gun advocates who would never be in favor of such a thing or vote for anyone who would be in favor of such a thing!
This is actually a bit of a misrepresentation, The Dickey Amendment says they are allowed to study gun violence data, but not allowed to advocate for gun control. Congress further clarified this in 2018, because the CDC had decided that studying is too close to advocating and they were scared of getting in trouble, and earmarked $25 million for the study of gun violence - just not the advocation of gun control.
Of course, there’s also no shortage of groups that are allowed to push an agenda, like Giffords’, Everytown, Mom’s Demand Action, etc.
Which gets hairy depending on who is in the White House, we “gun control would reduce fatalities” morphs from an observed statistical truth into a statement of advocacy depending on who is running the department
Just always from the outside, where they can’t affect policy.
Sure, but if they say “here is the gun violence data” instead, they’d be fine. Tbh your statement while it may be true does sound a little advocate-y, therein may lie your misunderstanding.
Sure, like the NRA.
Ehhhh…like the NRA? Seems to me groups outside of regulatory agencies can indeed still influence politics.
Right. Because that data can then be manipulated by cagey legislators to mean whatever they like. If the agency producing the data comes out with a clear declarative “The conclusions we reach from the data is X” it becomes more difficult for a Louie Gohmert or Sarah Huckabee Sanders to claim “Even the CDC agrees that more guns are good” without getting some kind of easy media push back.
So you’ve got a federal agency that’s forced to defer to the NRA on the question of publicly available statements on gun safety.
The folks with the biggest pile of financial contributors setting the standard for good gun habits makes about as much sense as telling the FDA to let pro and anti-smoking advertisement agencies argue over the safety of cigarettes.
And by that same coin some Warren or Pelosi can claim the opposite, just because the cdc itself can’t advocate using the data doesn’t mean others can’t.
The NRA is a federal agency? So Wayne LaPierre is a government official now? News to me. Seems to me they aren’t, but are in fact a real world example of a non-governmental entity affecting politics, which is supposedly not possible according to your refutation of me saying there are other groups that are allowed to push an agenda.
That’s not an argument in favor of censoring the CDC. Two lies do not get us closer to the truth
Point is, they can study, just not advocate, whether or not you agree with censoring their advocation or not.
Which becomes a problem when it comes time to author functional administrative policy