The Ghost Gun Issue as a Straw Horse

Status
Not open for further replies.
Increasing executions is not a society I would be happy with. Increased incarceration has not done much and is a negative in the long run.
Click to expand...
The focus needs to be VIOLENT crime, not just crime in general. I agree there are far too many non-violent criminals locked up.
Yes, we should have executions for drug users! Execute 15% of the population.
Click to expand...
There's a huge difference between saying that violent reoffenders need to be taken out of society indefinitely and saying that drug users should be executed. In fact, 'huge' is an understatement.

It's a pretty simple equation and it's difficult to argue against it. If only 1% of the population are violent re-offenders and commit 2/3rds of violent crime, regardless of opinion, taking that 1% out of circulation is definitely going to reduce violent crime tremendously. Even if seeing that doesn't do anything to prevent others from engaging in violent crime (totally neglecting any deterrent effect), the benefit is already significant--and that's true regardless of the causes that drive that 1% to reoffend.

The problem is that society is going to try to deal with violent crime in one way or another. Trying to regulate items and substances instead of behavior and reoffenders is obviously ineffective since what is targeted isn't what's causing the crime. Taking that approach means that more and more freedom will be taken away without doing anything to deal with the source of the problem. The reason that legislatures are trying to restrict "ghost guns" is precisely because of this problem--the focus is all wrong. It's not the fact that you can legally make guns for your own use that's resulting in violent crime, it's that violent offenders, who make up a very small percentage of the population are being released into to society to re-offend. Dealing with their METHODS is pointless because it's not the methods that are the problem.

It's obvious that society isn't willing to take the steps necessary to really reduce violent crime and that means that it will continue to be used as an excuse to pass more and more freedom-restricting laws that will have no effect on the outcome.
What exactly is a "dummy" gun?
Click to expand...
A gun that looks functional but can not be made to fire.
 
The violent offenders, a small number, are products and come to be because in part of the blight of their communities. Fix the communities and we won't see that many of them. Don't fix and they will continue to be produced. Areas without the problems don't produce them as much. Otherwise you will play wack-a-mole with such folks.

It just comes down to this:

Do we have checks on purchasing guns or kits that easily make guns or not?
 
WrongHanded said:
I respect you giving such a straight forward answer. It's hard for a lot of people to accept that child molesters, rapists, and other violent offenders who may have committed horrendous acts, deserve to have all their rights restored when they have served their sentence.
Click to expand...

How about keeping them in jail if they still present a risk to society because we all know rules don't stop people from acquiring firearms and if you committed any of those horrendous acts then clearly you have proven laws mean nothing to you.
 
shafter said:
How about keeping them in jail if they still present a risk to society because we all know rules don't stop people from acquiring firearms and if you committed any of those horrendous acts then clearly you have proven laws mean nothing to you.
Click to expand...

Great idea! But that's not currently how our society deals with such people.
 
The violent offenders, a small number, are products and come to be because in part of the blight of their communities.
Click to expand...
Even in these blighted communities only a very small percentage are violent reoffenders. Even if we accept the proposition that more will be produced if they are taken off the streets, there still has to be a significant reduction in violent crime from taking that approach.
Otherwise you will play wack-a-mole with such folks.
Click to expand...
At least it's focusing on something that can actually make a difference. 80% receivers didn't cause this problem and restricting them won't do anything to solve it. It's ironic in this context that dealing with the actual violent offenders is seen as futile. If that's true, then restricting one particular class of tools they use is so much worse than futile that it's laughable.
But that's not currently how our society deals with such people.
Click to expand...
The point is that if the real problem isn't addressed, issues that, at best, could be defined as peripheral, can't have any significant beneficial effect.
 
JohnKSa said:
The point is that if the real problem isn't addressed, issues that, at best, could be defined as peripheral, can't have any significant beneficial effect.
Click to expand...

I agree. Can't say I've heard too much from Washington in the past decade or so about cracking down on crime though. At least not in any meaningful way, with written legislation proposed.
 
I agree that taking these folks off the street is useful and targeted programs that identify such have worked. One problem is a lack of cooperation in that endeavor in communities. Also the general outlook leads to a culture of economically motivated crime and with it a culture of violence. That culture produces some extremes but it affects more of the general population.

The ghost gun issue is trivial in the greater scheme of things. It is palliative for the antis to think it will greatly reduce crime and something for the progun folks to get excited about and send a check.

If for example the P80 kits are being used in significant numbers to produce guns for criminals, then that could be handled through FFL sales. Now, my Fed friend says that it is a problem. Since you buy guns through FFLs, why would this bother you, for this example.
 
old lady new shooter said:
What exactly is a "dummy" gun?
Click to expand...
It's a non-functional non-gun built on an unfinished non-gun receiver. In other words, a paperweight that looks like a gun.
JohnKSa said:
If you made any modifications to the receivers then they are now beyond 80% complete and are now considered firearms per federal law.
Click to expand...
We all know that "80%" is meaningless. There is no "percentage of completion" beyond which something is a gun. A piece of metal is either a gun or it isn't a gun, based on a rather arbitrary ATF determination.

This whole "ghost gun" proposal would allow the ATF to move the goalposts more than it already does.

For what it's worth, I didn't make any modifications to the receivers. Here's an example of a "dummy gun." It looks good externally, but the receiver is solid so that it doesn't accept a bolt. This is similar to a so-called "80%" AR-15 lower that has a solid FCG pocket. Yes, if you mill out the cavity (in either case), you have a gun.

IMG_0183a.jpg
 
webrx said:
"Ghost guns have become popular in recent years, but because they are untraceable, there is no good data indicating how many have been sold or are in circulation, says Alex McCourt, director of legal research at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy. According to a 2020 report from Everytown for Gun Safety, an anti-gun violence nonprofit, many ghost gun sellers found “their inventories stretched thin” because of increased demand in 2020."

"Some law enforcement agencies are recovering more ghost guns from crime scenes. In Philadelphia, for example, 99 ghost guns were recovered in 2019, jumping to 250 in 2020. And, as of mid-March this year, more than 80 had been recovered, according to Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro."

So if we extrapolate 100 x 50 states that is 5000 ghost guns that we can account for, how many total is still an unknown. Note: statistical data used is based on 2019 info but purchased data is 2020.

40 million guns purchased in 2020

5000/40000000 = .000125 if you only count gun sales in 2020

393 million guns in US per this report https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/guns-per-capita

so, 5000/393000000 = .00001272264


so, yep a bunch of zeros before a significant number

Now, interesting and on topic, this same report has a table of "Registered" firearms by state - somebody apparently has a database of "registered" guns.

Also, this same report says:
"
Rhode Island and New York have the lowest guns per capita of 3 per 1,000 people each. These states also have some of the lowest gun ownership overall, with only 14.8% of Rhode Island residents owning a gun and only 19.9% of New York residents owning a gun. The three other states with the lowest guns per capita, all with 5 per 1,000, are:

Delaware
Hawaii
Massachusetts

Similar to Rhode Island and New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have the lowest gun ownership rates in the U.S., with only 14.7% of each state's residents owning a gun. Unlike the states with higher guns per capita, these states all have some of the country's strictest gun laws. For example, New Jersey requires guns to be registered, requires a permit to purchase, a permit to carry, and does not allow open carry. Fortunately, these states also have the lowest numbers of gun deaths."

Well, do your own research and you will find that:

Delaware - 53 in 2019
Hawaii - 35 in 2019
Massachusetts - 157 in 2019
Rhode Island - 23 in 2019
New York - 601 in 2019

The actual lowest "deaths" 5 are:
WY 25
ME 23
RI 23
ND 21
VT 11

So Rhode Island is actually the only one of the 5 mentioned that are in the lowest 5 - (Remember how stats lie), they don't mention it in their article, but I suspect they are using some per capita measurement of "Death Rates" data to make their low gun ownership states look better - New York as an example. Also they are using only registered guns not all guns which is roughly 5 million guns total - not 393 million.

Also:
Guns per Capita by State
The number of firearms per capita ranges significantly between states. The lowest is 3 per 1,000 people in Rhode Island and New York, to 229 per 1,000 people in Wyoming.

Wyoming has, by far, the highest number of guns per capita. Of Wyoming's 581,075 people, there are 132,806 registered guns. The four other states with the highest number of guns per capita are:

Seventeen states have at least 20 guns per capita. Of these states, Texas has the most registered guns, with 588,696. Due to Texas's population size, its guns per capita is 21 per 1,000 people. New Hampshire, which has the second-highest guns per capita, has some of the most relaxed firearm laws in the U.S., including no requirement to register your gun. This is the case in many other states, so it's important to remember that the majority of guns in the U.S. are not registered

Just some food for thought:
Click to expand...

Actually i believe no one knows for sure how many guns are in the US right now or ever will. I do know the number will increase logarithmically in direct purportion to fear levels. Mandatory registration will destroy any chance of accurate numbers and increase violence.
 
JohnKSa said:
If reoffenders are committing about 2/3 of violent crime as the study I posted suggests, then locking up violent reoffenders indefinitely would certainly be an effective way to deal with THEIR criminal behavior regardless of what it does for anyone else's. I think most people would be really happy with a 2/3 reduction in violent crime and the only people who would suffer would be people who have committed more than one violent crime.

It wouldn't even really require much of an increase in our prison capacity. We're already at about 0.7% incarceration rate in the U.S.

Is it feasible? Yes. Would it be effective? Yes. Is there any chance our society will do it? No.
Click to expand...

If certain folks are never going to change and both a constant threat to others and an enormous public cost, there is only one solution to avoid the end of civilized society. Euthanasia
 
bersaguy said:
As far as I know, that is correct. An 80% lower is not considered a firearm by the ATF as it is only 80% complete. That chunk of aluminum would then need to be worked by a competent machinist, or mounted into a prohibitively expensive CNC machine to be completed. My understanding is the ATF chose this arbitrary 80% cut off to be the point that determines the difference between building a firearm and buying one. Now if that lower is 81% complete, then its a firearm, at least thats how it has been explained to me. Now, I very well may be mistaken, and from the other comments here, I probably am, but I was under the impression that if I wanted to transfer a homebuilt firearm, I would have to put an unique identifying number on it. But from what I'm seeing, it looks like its the intent behind making the gun in the first place. That puts the whole ball of wax in a very murky grey area.
Click to expand...
The term “80%” is not some official term. It’s just industry slang created by the manufacturers of the chunks of aluminum or plastic.
 
We all know that "80%" is meaningless. There is no "percentage of completion" beyond which something is a gun. A piece of metal is either a gun or it isn't a gun, based on a rather arbitrary ATF determination.
Click to expand...
Legally, there certainly is a threshold beyond which a chunk of metal (or a kit containing said chunk of metal) becomes a firearm for the purposes of BATF enforcement. At the same time, you are correct in stating that the threshold is arbitrary--defined by the BATF. The arbitrariness doesn't mean much from a practical perspective.
Yes, if you mill out the cavity (in either case), you have a gun.
Click to expand...
If you made ANY modifications to the receivers--for example, drilled any holes to mount parts, etc. then at the very least the BATF would have to reexamine the receiver to see if it is still below their arbitrary threshold for being a firearm. In the absence of such a reexamination/determination, the only safe assumption is that the modifications made have pushed it over the threshold and it is now a legal firearm per the BATF's definition. Again, I'm not saying that's how it should be...
 
Don’t fall into the trap about thinking that any of this has anything to do with reducing crime. It doesn’t. It’s about keeping guns out of the hands of citizens. That’s all.

Putting a stupid number on a gun doesn’t matter. Guess what? Criminal will grind that number off if they want to. There is your real “ghost gun”.
 
vintovka said:
Actually i believe no one knows for sure how many guns are in the US right now or ever will. I do know the number will increase logarithmically in direct purportion to fear levels. Mandatory registration will destroy any chance of accurate numbers and increase violence.
Click to expand...

You are right, we don't really know the numbers, and we really don't know how may "ghost" guns are out there, I extrapolated number of ghost guns from crime, using the reported 100 x 50 states, either built or serial number ground off that is at best a rough guess and at worse, way off.

I also agree that as fear levels go up, so will gun sales just look at what happened last year.

d
 
Here's a bit of background on the definition of a "non-gun" in regard to the AR-15 lower receiver. Originally, the ATF ruled that a lower receiver would be incomplete, and therefore a "non-gun," if any one of the following three areas was left unmachined: the Firing Control Group pocket, the magazine well, or the buffer tube socket. The industry realized that milling out the FCG pocket (and drilling three holes) would be easier for buyers to do at home than the other two operations. This became even more apparent with the advent of jigs to be used with routers. So, today, an unfinished FCG pocket is universally used in so-called "80%" receivers. But notice that the ATF never said anything about "80%" completion. That was strictly marketing hype.

So we know what is a "non-gun." But what is a "ghost gun"? It's a non-gun that has been completed at home into a working gun. Under current law, home building of guns (other than NFA weapons) for personal use can be done with no formalities such as marking with serial numbers, etc. The problem arises when such guns get diverted into criminal use. Then they can't be traced.

The proposal that we are discussing has two prongs: (1) marking /serialization of guns at the point of completion, and (2) marking / serialization of non-guns when they enter commercial distribution. I believe that both of these things would require legislation amending the GCA '68. Or at the very least the ATF would be tied into a pretzel revisiting its previous pronouncements.
 
Last edited:
Grumpy_old_Fart said:
question...

do black powder firearms not require a bgc?

asking for a felon
Click to expand...

They are starting to. Heard some of the big box stores are doing it. BP revolvers are selling as fast as they make them. Even the cheapest brass framed ones go fast. Cartridge conversions for these also don't last long when they come for sale.
 
kwguy said:
Don’t fall into the trap about thinking that any of this has anything to do with reducing crime. It doesn’t. It’s about keeping guns out of the hands of citizens. That’s all.

Putting a stupid number on a gun doesn’t matter. Guess what? Criminal will grind that number off if they want to. There is your real “ghost gun”.
Click to expand...

Or just steal one. Instant "ghost guns" with a innocent burglary victims to torture. Who really benefits the most from serialization?
 
What happens when a law is passed to make owning a ghost gun a felony, do you serialize yours (this is a hypothetical question not looking for an answer, especially if your answer is no) if you do not serialize or turn in as the law requires you then accept the penalty of going to jail and potentially losing your gun rights forever?

So, in the simplest sense, and I know this is way out of proportion to "Violent crimes".

When you were a kid, if you broke a house rule, maybe wreck dads car, or worse, you (again, generic you) got punished, grounded, beat with a switch (back in the old days), after you did your time, you hopefully learned your lesson, and you were restored your "Family Rights". Continue to be a screw up and you got a stiffer punishment, eventually, even in a family that loves you, you are ousted from that family, the black sheep, nobody loans you money anymore, tough love, sorry kid but you have proven to be a bad apple.

Should that same logic apply to a criminal?
Once they do their time, do they get the chance to become a productive part of society, rights restored or are they forever shunned and their rights forever revoked?

We (generic) have to decide if there is a chance for redemption, and if no reformation is possible, what to do then.

Have you ever, ever, made a mistake learned from it and had it change your life or actions for the better?

Repeat offenders, yes, they got a second chance and did not make the most of it, they go to jail, do not collect $200, longer, stiffer punishment, or perhaps, (this is for society to figure out), they have proven they can not be reformed and become a useful member of society so, the kid gloves are off. I think this was the basis for the 3 strike rule

Is this off topic, or is it relevant to this topic?

I have read comments on here like, "my ghost gun fell in the lake" or, "if there is a registration I will have lost or sold all my guns" etc.

We need to be the law abiding citizens, since we are also the ones who want to own and carry firearms. We need to not give the anti’s any leverage. If a law is passed and you (generic you) "lose your guns" are you still a law abiding citizen? Have you become the criminal? so I would advise caution on what we post on a public forum that can maybe come back to haunt us in a court of law, and also be cautious where you draw the line on who is redeemable and who is not and how many chances someone can have to be a productive member of society before they lose rights forever.

Ghost Guns are not the problem, new laws will not solve the violent crime problem, I think most of us agree on that point. Since I am probably preaching to the choir on this point, I will stop here.

Dave
 
Grumpy_old_Fart said:
question...

do black powder firearms not require a bgc?

asking for a felon
Click to expand...
No BGC required currently, however, as stated above, some stores are asking that you fill out an I am not a felon paper to CYA themselves. Also, and again, I am not a lawyer, that would be a question for that person to ask his lawyer in his state. I have read, that a felon can't own one of these either at least in some states, but, then I have read in other place they can. Best your friend be safe and get an answer from an attorney in his state.

d
 
thats my point.. a resourceful felon can obtain a firearm. sure, its black powder. but a bullet is a bullet. dont say the bullet wont kill.

so if the govt doesnt track antique designs, why track any? they can all kill.
 
Due to current run on guns and ammo I will be astounded that they don't come down on BP stuff. Hears some are demanding 4473's on them already.
 
GEM said:
You may want to assembly a long gun or a Glock kit for your hobby. However, the flow of such into criminal hands, if significant is or isn't a problem?
Click to expand...
Sorry, no flow. It's AT BEST referenced as, an ever so many years TRICKLE in comparison to the overall numbers

JohnKSa said:
...in violent crime and the only people who would suffer would be people who have committed more than one violent crime.
Click to expand...
AND...the perp's family. Many times with longer sentences, the significant other will move to that prison area. Guess where the perp NEEDS to go to , on post release control a.k.a. Parole? to...yeppers...the loved ones' home. Voila! MORE FELONS IN THAT AREA. So potentially, THAT LOCALE can suffer with increased crime rates.


webrx said:
Should that same logic apply to a criminal?
Once they do their time, do they get the chance to become a productive part of society, rights restored or are they forever shunned and their rights forever revoked?

We (generic) have to decide if there is a chance for redemption, and if no reformation is possible, what to do then.

Have you ever, ever, made a mistake learned from it and had it change your life or actions for the better?
Click to expand...
Yes, I have made mistakes. Let's shorten this to like, you know, .0002 seconds and the thread/conversation revolves around FIREARMS USED IN CRIME. Nope, nadda, nien, LOCK THEM UP when ANY gun goes BANG

POST #69 FOR THE WINNER CHICKEN DINNER....

'' Or just steal one. Instant "ghost guns" with a innocent burglary victims to torture. Who really benefits the most from serialization?

vintovka, Yesterday at 10:30 PM Report
#69 Like + Quote Reply ''

Yes, the FALLACY presented here in this so called-supposed 'ghost gun' serialization SCHEME is criminals who are INTELLIGENT enough to manufacturer complicated items i.e. firearms, CAN BE compared to a reg fella stealing for beer money.
No, neither can a criminal proficient in explosives to blow safes. Change already existing rules for commercial use? No, the criminal activity CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be used, to deny/ further restrict commercial blasting devices for excavations etc.

HOWEVER, in BOTH cases, said INTELLIGENT criminal is also intelligent enough to...CONTINUE their criminal enterprise via THEFT of the needed article. The beer thief just MIGHT...go get a job (LoL). THEREFORE, it could be concluded that, deleting the ghost gun possibility could actually INCREASE crime victims (e.g. post #69)...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Changed my mind on universal background checks
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
131
Views
7K
orionengnr
O
D
  • Locked
‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not
2 3
Replies
72
Views
5K
Robert
Robert
A
  • Locked
Would Universal Background Checks be acceptable if no firearm information was required?
2 3 4 5
Replies
106
Views
6K
GEM
G
SharpDog
  • Locked
Trump: universal background checks are off the table
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
GEM
G
D
  • Locked
"Universal Background Checks":Code for Universal Gun Registration
Replies
1
Views
561
mbt2001
M
Back
Top