comment: >
  
  Sweeping federal gun crime?! 
  “This is my broomstick”
context: Would it kill all these news agency to link the articles, going to guess the news and data isnt as clear cut and there are some key information is left out. >
  
  They can't risk us clicking away from their shitty sites. Web analytics and marketing is a major reason why out news is trash. >
  
  The fairness doctrine being weaponized, and then repealed, is the actual reason though >
  
  It started with Operation Mockingbird >
  
  That was the, "weaponized" part of my comment. Good look on the link >
  
  Yeah sorry, I never waste an opportunity to talk about it 😂 >
  
  Haha right on, I wasn't trying to gatekeep my own comment. It's great to provide links etc. It's pretty funny that a law designed to be bipartisan, and eventually led to this current disaster, was first bent over by Kennedy and basically finished off by Nixon and friends. >
  
  A bunch of Glock switches came from I wanna say wish. Before the govt recognized what they were and stopped it 
  :Edit a Glock switch is the illegal device used to SWITCH a standard Glock to full auto. >
  
  What are they sold as on wish or did they literally just market glock switches on their site? >
  
  They marketed them as full auto airsoft conversions, was a good year or two where you'd see airsoft Glock switches on Wish that just so happened to look like real ones pop up as related on anything gun adjacent. >
  
  Right next to the "car solvent traps with baffle assembly" that was clearly a firearm supressor.
  Nice try ATF. >
  
  I still don't get why suppressors are banned, its not like the movies.  It just takes a ear popping noise to a slightly less ear popping noise >
  
  Logic has no part in this. Neither side of the gun debate wants to give up ground, whether a particular regulation makes sense or not.
  If our government was composed of functional adults who care about the country and its citizens, maybe they could compromise - suppressors and SBRs become legal without a tax stamp, in exchange for a few of the common sense gun laws the left has been asking for. But we don’t have that kind of system. >
  
  Love to see a rational approach to the issue. >
  
  "The most expansive federal report in over two decades on guns and crime shows a shrinking turnaround between the time a gun was purchased and when it was recovered from a crime scene, indicating firearms bought legally are more quickly being used in crimes around the country.
  It also documents a spike in the use of conversion devices that make a semiautomatic gun fire like a machine gun, along with the growing seizure of so-called ghost guns, privately made firearms that are hard to trace." >
  
  Everything continues to get worse. Congrats NRA. >
  
  My money is on social media. Buy guns,  immediately tell all 986 people they "know" cause people are like that. >
  
  my money is on guns >
  
  Yeah, that is the problem.  My gun nut brother in rural red state america had a \~$50k gun collection but forced his wife and daughters to live in an unimproved 80 year old hovel he bought for $5k.
  When it came to finding evidence he was a POS, well, that was a lot of it. >
  
  That guy just sounds like an asshole, and happens to be a gun owner? >
  
  Yeah sounds like they're saying owning guns makes you an asshole lmao >
  
  Stolen guns are a huge problem.  My father in law has his house burglered and they took his entire safe. It must of been 4 men at least to lift into a truck.  Cops recovered exactly none of them. >
  
  A lot of people keep their firearms in their vehicles as well which are easily broken into. People in rural areas storing guns behind their seat or people in general sticking a handgun in the glovebox. If you're going to break into a car, checking for firearms would always be worth it given the likelihood of one turning up. Even in the reports it says that of the million stolen guns 96% were stolen from private citizens. That's a lot of guns.
  Edit: my hometown had a big problem with this. Rural bumblefuck God and guns county where it felt like every shitty pickup had a rifle and a shotgun behind the seat and a pistol in the glove box and they would just be left there unsecured. Shit was constantly getting stolen. >
  
  But those people being stolen from will be sure to call themselves responsible gun owners without any hesitation to think about how being a responsible gun owner included properly securing your weapon. Last I checked, leaving a gun in a glove box or behind a seat is not properly secured. But they sure are responsible gun owners. >
  
  Leaving a gun in a locked box isn’t being responsible? Taking it into somewhere you can’t have a gun isn’t being responsible either. >
  
  The glove box isn't a locked container for guns. Yes, pretty much every glove box has a lock, but you can easily break into most glove boxes. A gun containers is supposed to be a safe. >
  
  You can break into anything dude.
  Love that you didn’t address the second point though. >
  
  You’re just not supposed to have a gun ever silly. This is Reddit duh >
  
  You “people” certainly shouldn’t have any guns. >
  
  What’s you got against Puerto Ricans dog wtf? >
  
  I look forward to a mature and nuanced discussion of the results. >
  
  Obligatory “fuck the ATF”. They really are a shit agency that needs to be dissolved. >
  
  I mean, to be fair, someone does need to regulate alcohol, tobacco and firearms for the safety of the user. someone needs to make sure the tobacco isn't filled with arsenic, someone needs to make sure the alcohol doesn't have a mix of ethyl and methyl alcohol, and someone needs to make sure gun barrels don't explode and harm the user, and prevent faulty trigger assemblies from going off when knocked slightly.
  I'd prefer if it wasn't the Consumer Products Safety Commission, they already banned all the fun fireworks and lawn darts because idiots got hurt with them, whereas the point of guns is typically to hurt somebody (that isn't the user).
  but as far as the whole "you can't have this cool accessory" thing, we definitely agree. >
  
  ATF's current issue is they think they are a legislative branch and can redefine definitions so that today something is legal and they said it was legal for 10 years, but tomorrow they changed their mind and now it is illegal.
  They hide behind that they are just reinterpreting the definition, but the fact remains, it was legal yesterday, not today, congress didn't pass it, ATF made law and they can enforce said law to punish innocent people with 10 years in prison. >
  
  The problem of course being that ten years ago the thing they said was legal was rarely used by certain professionals. Fast forward to the industry and customers finding out it is a loophole that allows xyz version of firearms and they are everywhere. Now it poses a different risk profile to the public so they change their stance on it. 
  Is this the best way to be represented? 
  Congress should be setting up an organization of firearm experts and having them craft policies and laws that protect all their constituents, including firearms owners and non-firearms owners.
  Oh wait, that is what they did. They set up the ATF who hired experts and have watched them do this non-legislative legislating for decades. And despite the changing of definitions and policies without a direct law, Congress has not reigned them in yet. 
  I say it's not the ATF that is the problem, it's Congress. The Left wants the ATF to go hard so they won't stop it, and the Right loves when gun people are angry at the Left so they won't stop it either. And come election time, both sides use gun anger to drive people to the polls. So where's the motivation to solve it? Meanwhile, you and I are left checking the web periodically to make sure the thing we want to buy and use isn't currently illegal, and isn't likely to be made illegal next week. >
  
  Imagine trying to do mental gymnastics to say its okay that a governing body can tell you that you can't put something on your shoulder or put your hand around a grip, or use something with 2 hands...all nonviolent things, what a hell of an authoritarian regime we are in.
  The ATF will be ripped apart in court for this overreach, and they've exposed the unconstitutionality of SBR's being on the NFA. >
  
  All nonviolent if I'm using a camera sure. But on a rifle? It certainly does make them easier to use. 
  My point above isn't that I think they can or should be telling anyone anything. It's that it isn't going to be solved by sassy punks on the internet. You need to agitate for Congress to do something about it. And the courts are a half solution at best. Some other judge can come along and reverse it a decade later and we're no better off than before. >
  
  What is wrong with making something you have a right to easier to use? Please explain without using balancing of interests and "for the greater good" rhetoric. >
  
  Don't know if you've noticed, but gender reassignment, CRT books, and abortion aren't exactly getting easier to access in America.
  But that aside, your rights end where my nose begins. Alcohol is something you can drink as much as you want of, but sale is strictly regulated from an industry and consumer standpoint. >
  
  Quite interesting is the states where crime guns were traced to the purchaser (not necessarily the criminal though). Wisconsin, South Carolina, Georgia, Ohio & Alabama had the highest trace rate. Most of those states have fairly hands off approaches. 
  On the other hand, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut had the lowest rates; those states all have very strict registration laws. I wonder why that is. 
  Also interesting is the data around gun shows. 3% of “crime guns” are traced to gun shows. The report does note that it is possible for private citizens to buy/sell outside of FFLs at those shows but only if they are not engaging in the business of doing so as defined by federal law. C.F.R §478.11.
  Also noteworthy is the multiple gun transactions data. It is a small fraction of guns linked to a crime which themselves are linked to a multiple gun purchase. May we surmise that staggering how many guns may be purchased is ineffective?
  Also, firearms chambered in 5.56/.223 were involved in 0.5% of submissions. 
  Very interestingly, 58.4% of cases the traced purchaser and the possessor are not the same person. A further 29.4% are instances where the purchaser is known but the possessor is not. So 87.8% of all cases the traced purchaser appears to not be the criminal who broke the law. 
  Lastly, it is noteworthy that the overwhelming majority of prohibited persons do not get their firearms (which are later used in crimes) via FFLs (licensed dealers). Rather, they get them via illicit means that when the various trends and data are assessed indicates that they were either trafficked or stolen. >
  
  It's strange to me that in all these statistics about gun crimes/homicides AR style rifles account for a fraction of a percent yet they're the big boogeyman that gun bans go after. Why not put all this effort towards handguns and maybe actually accomplish something in regards to crimes/homicides? >
  
  This is something gun owners have been screaming forever now when gun control comes up. Semi auto rifles in general, and specifically AR variants account for veryyyyy little overall crime. Yet it’s always the category of firearm targeted.
  Enforce current laws strictly and swiftly, open up NICS to private sale, stop letting violent criminals off so easily when guns, especially stolen/illegally modified are used. >
  
  And when semi auto or pump shotguns, which are almost never demonized, are used in mass shootings, the results are absolutely horrific. 
  They are so much more effective, and yet the left (where I staunchly sit, except for this issue) constantly rails that you can just have a shotgun instead of an ar. Watch a ballistic dummy take a round of buckshot and then tell me that.