Have another look and read of the article in the OP.
It starts off with an 'ugly' picture of a Glock-clone (probably a poly-80 or similar; can't tell what slide it is) with a beat up or crude slide. Subliminal rhetoric.
Second sentence (from article):
“It’s a big problem; it’s a huge problem,” D.C. police Cmdr. Ramey Kyle said. “You know, guns are inherently dangerous, and with these switches, that’s magnified 10, 20 times.”
Ummmmm......yeah........ What's scary to me is there's a police supervisor somewhere who spews this drivel. Someone who should (and probably DOES) know better, while also ignoring the source document he's or she's sworn to (which allows the RKBA).
Again, more anti-gun rhetoric--much like "Assault Rifle". Whatever this is doesn't make the gun any more 'dangerous' or in any way magnify their 'dangerosity' -- except perhaps to an untrained user who might injure himself with it. It PERHAPS makes the gun fire faster than someone normally might fire it, but then again Jerry Miculek or the Jelly Brices of the past could empty revolvers (and reload them) pretty
[email protected] fast (and actually hit things) so I'd think of a revolver in THESE gentleman's hands much more 'dangerous' (to whatever they might wanna hit) than some Chinese POS designed to make a poly-80 or a Glock fire f/a. In fact, I would think (much like slide fire stocks) that such a device would have reliability issues--taking away THE most important factor in ANY gun anywhere. Anything that makes a gun LESS reliable needs to be avoided like the plague.
The article goes on:
“It’s scary; it’s absolutely scary,” Kyle said. “It’s scary for our officers that are out there recovering these firearms. It’s scary for the citizens, you know, these switches, these handguns are being used in their community.”
I don't know of ONE shooting by a F/A modified handgun or where this thing has presented any additional threat to anyone anywhere. Other than it being gee whiz and illegal I don't see much of a story or threat here. Same thing for slide fire and bump stocks; they were allegedly USED in the Vegas shooting and exploited for their 'scary' factor (and later banned by an errant Trump ATF and then unbanned by the courts). We all know how little AR platforms are used in actual shootings (and comprise a VERY VERY small fraction of crimes committed with firearms) yet are the first thing anti-gunners go after because they LOOK scary and are roughly equivalent to the most common patrol rifle used by LE in the nation (the whole point of the 2A being that if the cops or entities of the state get it WE get it). Did the slide fire devices enhance the injuries/death in the Vegas case ? Nope. It just made things sound scarier.
There's alot of empty space out there. Even in one of the most crowded places on the planet (a full commercial airplane) the average density of an aircraft cabin is similar to that of styrofoam (at least before people began packing their carry-ons with everything they could cram into them). Most of the world as we know it is empty space save for air. A device which not only makes a gun less reliable but also sprays bullets (into empty space) I'd hardly think as of something to get excited over (at least for a trained LE professional assessing a threat). So to me the article is just one more piece of 'scary' propaganda (like every OTHER anti-gun propaganda article--or most of the entire COVID nonsense). You don't get any MORE 'firepower' out of crap like this (the device in the OP); you simply get something that might (or might not) go bang faster than you can make it go bangy with your finger, at the expense of lack of controllability and accuracy and gun reliability. Doesn't sound like a good deal to me for any purpose someone might use a handgun for.
I'm not debating the usefulness of F/A fire; the 50 cal on our track was certainly useful in GW1, and achieving a guns track on a maneuvering BG -- even WITH a 20mm cannon which has a radar computing sight and roughly 4200 RPM (in the 'high' setting) is a very hard thing to do (at least if the adversary pilot is competent)--and also a reason why missiles exist and (other than an A-10 who shot down a helicopter) why there have been NO US A-A guns kills since Vietnam (even with some phenomenal gee-whiz equipment ON our canted 20mm cannon). Within it's setting F/A is fun and awesome and the A-10 is an amazing platform (at least against slower moving land-based vehicles)--so IT'S gun is certainly useful (somewhat unlike ours on the F-15E for A/G strafe where using any type of bomb would usually be a better choice) . But a Chinese F/A piece o' crap doesn't turn a Glock or poly-80 into some scary weapon o' death and the OP article is simply one more rhetorical anti-gun hit job.
Is there a 'need' for LE to have F/A firearms ? Dunno. Perhaps TAC could chime in to how it might be helpful in some of their situations. I don't see alot of situations where they would be, but then again I'm not in THEIR situation nor do I do what they do on a daily basis. Would a F/A device on a duty handgun in any way be useful for LE ? I REALLY doubt it but again would defer to someone with real experience to make a case as to how it might (I wouldn't want one on any of MY handguns even IF they were legal which they aren't).
And kindly note I'm not knocking F/A firing (or even slide firing) for the 'fun' factor. What I AM saying is the article is propaganda in that somehow this is either a problem OR it makes a handgun more 'deadly' than it already is. In fact, for a non-expert quite the opposite.
SHOULD the NFA be there in the first place ? Nope. I don't think it ever got a fair shake when implemented (and is unlikely to moving forward) in the courts but we can all read 'shall not be infringed' and it IS an infringement (if state entities can bear F/A firearms, then common citizens get them too--again the intent of the 2A). SHOULD a regular Joe or Jane be able to own a Thompson (or equivalent) unrestricted ? Yup. But we all know that's not the case and for now such a thing would be felonious (and many of us DO legally own suppressors and the like for which we've gone through the NFA process). In fact, some rogue government entities are now trying to go after stuff (like braces) declared for years to be legal by the same entity that would now try to ban them (likely losing in the courts; you can't tell millions of folks yesterday something is OK and then tomorrow it's not without a legislative change).
Given the huge amount of rhetoric surrounding the WuFlu, and accentuated by anti-gun drivel as well as the 'climate change' nonsense, my radar gets pinged when I read articles full of leftist bumper sticker rhetoric (and perhaps I'm getting a bit more sensitive than need be). FWIW, as a former non-civilian, it might be quibbling but we need remember cops and other LE ARE 'civilians' -- just like us -- with some simple authorities like the authority to arrest (which does NOT put them in a 'special' category of non-civilian). What they get we get. Even for most of the bona fide NON civilian categories (common arms of the military) the entire intent of the 2A IS that we'd (the regular folks out here) be at least as well armed with the common arms OF a potential captor military (whether that'd be our own government or that of a foreign nation). I think we need be REAL careful in categorizing (or giving special status to) LE forces; they're regular folks just like us (as far as equipment goes) who have a few authorizations (of power of enforcement of arrest) that us common folks might not have. As people who support the 2A--and are a part of the narrative--it's important we hammer this home and stay on point and message. Just because someone wears a badge does NOT mean they get armament that the rest of us don't, or get special 'privileges' in keeping it and bearing it (or in where they can keep and bear it). A common citizen has the same 2A RKBA that any LE might have (who is a common citizen as well). They are NOT in some 'special' category that regular folks aren't. They are folks just like us. And we ALL have a responsibility to self and state to be competent in the bearing of arms against threats--whatever those might be.
Bottom line for me is if there were thousands (or millions) of these things floating around out there to me it wouldn't raise an eyebrow. Just more stuff for tools that I wouldn't see an experienced shooter having much use for. Not alot different than the slide-fire stuff (which I never had a use for either).
