Ghost Guns: Firearm Kits Bought Online Fuel Epidemic of Violence

I do not make the assumption that ALL people in any class, are identical. Therefore, it is impossible, to my mind, to speak to the thinking of every person who orders a "ghost gun." However, if this was the only type of firearm, free from serial numbers, it seems within the pale of possibility that some (future) criminals, would opt for that route, rather than for buying a ready- assembled weapon, from which they would then need to completely excise any trace of a serial number. It is not "proof," that no one would do this, simply because you think that would be the more difficult route.

You are also ignoring the definite possibility (truly, the certainty) that some who originally purchase the ghost gun, with no malicious intents, might later find themselves in a situation in which they might be tempted to use an firearm for an illegal purpose, but only if it were a gun that couldn't be traced to them.

Finally, since I have heard no one offer any sane reason, why having the serial number, on the part(s), would do any harm to anyone who was purchasing the gun for completely legal uses, I consider the bar against doing this, to be extremely low.

 

How is this going to make it tougher to commit crimes and get away with them?

 

But you did make the point that criminals typically act impulsively with little consideration for consequences. Even pointed out the subway attacker didn't even finish grinding the serial number off the gun he used.

To say all of that and then say we need to put a serial number on a part and sell it as though it is a firearm in order to stop crime doesn't make a lot of sense.

going through the process of removing the serial number depending on the firearm would only take a few minutes. Ordering custom machine parts and assembling that would take a few days.

I think the only type of person that would opt for the letter would be a fictional assassin.

I don't think it's a more difficult route I know it is and you should as well.

Taking a few seconds with a hammer and chisel to knock a serial number out of a gun you possibly stole or bought at a pawn shop for 2 or 300 bucks.

Is much less difficult then spending thousands of dollars ordering parts

That's like saying you don't know which one's more difficult building a house or simply purchasing one making a car or simply purchasing one building a boat or simply purchasing one.

Just because you have an opinion about someone else's reasoning that you belligerently go through Great lengths not to understand doesn't mean that it's not sane.

 

That's a good question. Pistol with a serial number on it can we used to kill just as easily as one without one.

I don't think he understands this topic or he's pretending he doesn't understand the topic in order to side with his party.

 

Because there would be a method of tracking the weapon, obviously, unless all serial numbers are completely removed from it, by the user. This is an additional, required step, for the criminal which, by definition, makes it "tougher," for him.

Also, you are thinking about the ramifications in an illegitimately narrow way: only in the case of a person buying this gun kit, with the expressed intent of using it in a crime. But that is not the only scenario that would, ultimately, come up. Take, for example, a situation in which a burglar steals a ghost gun, as part of his haul, from someone's home. What is to stop that person from using the gun, himself, in a crime, or from illegally selling it, to someone else, who does so? And, in that case, the odds that the new owner would remove the serial number, are less than if it were someone who had ordered the kit, intending to use the gun for criminal purposes (and so planning on removing the serial number). You see? Having no serial number on the parts, to begin with, would make it easier for the thief, or receiver of stolen goods, to have an untraceable weapon at their disposal. Therefore, including a serial number, has the opposite effect (it makes it harder).

 

5 seconds with an angle grinder doesn't seem to me like enough 'tougher' to justify an expensive new law...

 

This is a Springfield XD. The serial number is a plate imbedded in polymer



A good rap with a chisel would snap it right out of there. You don't even need a grinder.

Serial numbers have nothing to do with crime it's all about keeping tabs on who owns guns.

 

Hey @FreshAir

I thought you might like to see this thread since you are always the one telling us that Obama passed no new gun laws and that Trump was very restrictive in passing laws.

Just letting you know you can't claim that one any longer

 

And yet, the man who came all the way from Ohio, to Brooklyn, New York, having obviously given thought to his plans, was unsuccessful in removing his own gun's serial number.

Forgive me if I repeat myself, but there are so many I am discussing this with, in two different threads, who have the same, completely divorced from reality perspective as you, that I can no longer keep straight, which arguments I've put forth, to each individual. So let me make you the first, to whom I offer this new compromise. If you concede that, in practice, every weapon that is used in a crime has not had every conceivable precaution, against having it traced to, or near to, the perpetrator, performed upon it, then I will concede that the adding of a serial number is not something, beyond countering.

So, in totally inapplicable theory, you might have a point. But in the real world, even though serial numbers could, hypothetically be removed from every gun, before it is used in a crime, I would be willing to make a sizable bet, that most guns, used in crimes, have not had their serial numbers removed.

To me, the actual reality, has 98% of the importance, here. As to why, criminals would not, in practice, do what you suggest, I obviously cannot know, because humans do not always act rationally (which you know, right?). I can also imagine that some might feel that keeping a gun around, which had its serial number removed, might be seen as a liability; that is, it would not look good, if discovered. So maybe, right before they were going to use it, their angle grinder just wasn't handy?

But Yogi Berra summed it up, best, when he explained:
theory & practice are the same-- in theory. In practice, they're not.

 

'unseccessful' ...did he try?

And how come he didn't just use a 'ghost gun'?

I will concede that dumb criminals often dont consider the serial number on their weapon. Those that arent total morons are not going to be caught by gun tracking.

WA state instituted mandatory background checks on all firearm transfers about 7 years ago. In those years, at a cost of $10M per year, they've resulted in a single prosecution for straw purchasing and zero reduction in gun related crime.

Unless WA is some sort of weird anomaly, this law is going to cost taxpayers a lot of money without making them any safer.

Its also going to make getting firearms more expensive for law abiding folks, given that 80% receiver kits are typically a lot more affordible for people with a little technical knowhow than buying an assembled and registered gun, both because of the additional labor required and because of the lack of bureaucracy and liability required for selling a parts kit that can't fire a bullet. Whereas black market prices for functional firearms will be unaffected by this law.

 

It's not divorced from reality to think that a serial number on a firearm that serves no real purpose in catching criminals. It doesn't they didn't catch this guy because of the serial number on his firearm.

Serial numbers are there so that the ATF can spy on us. That's the only reason they want to serial number 80% lowers. They don't like the idea of people owning guns without them knowing about it.

Yeah and I don't know why so many people kiss ass with this organization it is garbage these people burned children to death in 1993 because they didn't like the guns their parents owned.

 

Unfortunately, these are the types of meaningless arguments, that you "typically," make. Your first paragraph is no argument against mine, unless you mean to be implying that my argument precluded any criminals from going through the trouble of building a ghost gun. It did not.

Your second paragraph, misrepresents my claim, in order to try and present it as illogical; this cheap trick is indicative of people who realize they cannot win their argument, just on the facts. Please offer evidence of your suggestion, that I said, "we need to put a serial number...in order to stop crime." Of course, this "doesn't make a lot of sense:" you deliberately (or accidentally) altered my words, for that precise result.

Like so many others, you are only making a theoretical argument, which actual experience has shown, is not a valid one. By your inference, all guns used in crimes should have had their serial numbers removed. But we know that this doesn't happen, in all cases-- I'm sure, not even close. So you seem unwilling to accept reality, unless I can explain the behavior of others that, to you, seems illogical. That humans do "unreasonable" things, is not an argument that unreasonable things will not continue to occur.

Your thinking this, is not any type of argument. Obviously, there is much that escapes your thinking.

For example, all your arguments are based on the single scenario, of a criminal ordering this gun-- or not ordering it-- in order to commit a crime. Not all crimes are committed by "professional criminals." In fact, in the case of murders, the opposite is quite possibly true (depending on your defining of terms). That is, people who shoot other people with guns, very often did not realize they would be using the gun for that purpose, when they got it. In fact, in crimes of passion, the perpetrator may not be expecting to kill anyone, until it actually happens. I guess one could still remove the serial number, at that point, though that might not help much, if the gun is registered to the person, for instance. Also, when normal citizens commit murder, you may be surprised to learn, they very often panic and do not act with cool, dispassionate reason.

For those "ordinary citizens" who do decide, in advance, to kill somebody-- if they already have on hand, both a gun which can be traced to them, and another one, that can't be, which one are they gonna use?

Then, there is also the circumstance of a ghost gun which gets stolen from its original owner. Again, unless criminals never use guns with serial numbers, your argument about how easy it is to defeat serial numbers, is moot.

And that turns out to be the balance of your argument, just using different words, to reiterate this one idea, over & over, as in every other one of your replies.

 

They don't limit the topics to firearms either.

 

I've talked to you enough seeing you make non-argument after non-argument and evade in the argument that you can't address.

So I will judge you at this point to be empty and without anything of validity to say.


You may respond to me if you wish but unless you have something profound to say I won't be responding back.

I won't hold my breath

 

Definitely. I'm starting to think many laws are created for crony corporatists.

I'm reminded of right to repair. Which is just a set of laws that would prevent designed sabotage if you said about trying to repair something you own.

And the reason the keystone Pipeline was halted has nothing to do with it being green and it's really the opposite of that it's because the railroad paid Biden to do that so that they could get the exclusive contract this sort of thing has been going on since probably before the founding of the nation.

 

post a link to me ever saying "Obama passed no new gun laws"

post a link to me ever saying "Trump was very restrictive in passing laws"

maybe your confusing me with someone else

I support the 2nd, in fact I think ALL free Americans have a right to own a gun to protect their homes and families if they choose, even ex-felons that have served their sentence - do you support the 2nd for ALL free Americans?

 

Perhaps I did confuse you but maybe then again I didn't? Of course I support it

 

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/day-2-brooklyn-subway-shooting-nyc/index.html

[SNIP]
Authorities believe Brooklyn subway shooting suspect attempted to deface the serial number on gun

The Glock 17 that authorities found at the scene of the Brooklyn subway shooting had scratch marks on its serial number, according to a court document.

A complaint against suspected Brooklyn subway shooter Frank James shows a photo of the Glock pistol with scratches over two areas where a serial number appears, and prosecutors said they believe the marks "appear to reflect that an attempt was made to deface the serial number."

Prosecutors said in the complaint that they believe the gun was purchased lawfully in Ohio by a man named Frank Robert James, and that it was used in the shooting.

[End]

So that, right there, is enough of a reason, for this law. Remember, it is not just the builder of the gun who may, ultimately, possess it.

I can't speak to Washington State's experience though, right off the bat, I'm surprised that it doesn't immediately dawn upon you that there is a huge difference between a local or regional law, which can be easy avoided by not buying your gun, in that state, for instance, versus a national regulation, which cannot be so easily side-stepped. As irrational as it may seem, it is my understanding that other experience with background checks has shown that a significant # of people who are not allowed to buy guns, nevertheless try to buy them, from dealers who require background checks, which stop them. So your conceded designation of "dumb criminals," may be far more significant than you realized.

I take it that when you say these kits "can't fire a bullet," you are referring to the way they come, before assembly? If you have, up until now,
been using these kits, to produce working weapons for yourself, without needing to pass, or pay for, a background check, then you have been beating the system. That does not mean that you should not have needed a check, just because you were doing some of the work, yourself; therefore it is not an argument that it is "unfair" to charge you, in the future.

The only suggestion I can offer, if your finances are tight enough, that this fee is a significant burden, is to try to wait until you can afford to get several kits at once, for which you will only need pay (I assume) for a single background check.

 

maybe you do, maybe you don't

 

I can agree that being able to promote fear of a perceived threat is directly connected to the pursuit of more power- we've seen that over and over.

I would agree that the object is to gather data- BUT that it is an Interim objective- but not the end reason. Virtually nobody buys a gun to commit a crime; having the serial numbers of all guns would hardly result in many arrests of criminals. They have other motives.

We must ask the follow-up question- What will the government having that data lead to?

 

Biden is hardly acting for your benefit here. The term "ghost guns" is nothing more than referring to untraceable guns- but most guns are untraceable anyway, including those with serial numbers and legally purchased. There are about 400 million guns in America. The ATF says it has nearly a billion gun records.... that makes no sense.

Guns sold before the registrations laws were created- are not registered.
Guns illegally imported are not registered- and the cartels do smuggle these things; and only criminals buy them.

The process of people making guns at home is legal, and the idea of doing so is not for the purpose of crime... but for the purpose of not having the government be able to come to your door to confiscate your means of defense. Few people trust government anymore- and the actions of government, sadly- fully warrant that perspective. The path of increasing control over the lives of individuals has been persistent, regardless of the party in power. It is something we have been warned about all our lives; "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". As the level of power over the people increases, the addiction to power grows- and more is seen as necessary. They gain power with your consent- by telling you of a danger and saying they need the power to protect you from it.

Changes such as that created under the Lyndon Johnson administration, described as protecting the American people from increasing crime.... a common representation; none of which have resulted in a reduction of crime. Another prime example of the wrong approach to a problem such as guns are perceived to be- is the "War on Drugs". Launched by Nixon, in 1971. 50 years running now, costs in both lives and dollars beyond calculation- and the results should be seen as reflecting the wisdom of the choices. In 1971, there were about 6800 drug deaths, or 3.3 per 100,000 population. In 2019, there were over 70,000, or 21.7 per 100,000.
Last year- over 100,000 overdose deaths. The "War" was lost from the beginning- because it failed to address the causes and focused on the symptoms or results. It failed to give people a feeling of confidence in their society, their world, that was greater than the need to escape it.

The war on guns is following the same path. We are told to see the weapon as the criminal- get tougher on guns, while we get softer on crime and criminals. If all the guns were actually eliminated.... All the criminals would still be here. The nature of violence might shift from guns to some other weapon, but the level of it would only increase- and your power to defend yourself, and your freedom- would be gone.
The enemy IS NOT the gun- it's the person holding it that is important, and that person may be using that gun to defend or attack. The evil comes from people, not the weapon they chose. If you lose focus on that, give them power over your ability to defend yourself- you have already surrendered.

 

False news, Ghost Guns account for less than .3% of guns used in crimes.

 

Right it's about keeping tabs on them so the government can later confiscate them that's the only point to it.

 

anti gunners operate under the following silly assumptions

1) those who own guns currently, and have not engaged in criminal activity-need more of their freedoms curtailed so as to prevent them from engaging in malum per se offenses that they have never yet committed

2) those unafraid of the consequences of being convicted of murder, armed robbery, attempted murder or felonious assault with a deadly weapon, will stop committing those crimes if we pass a couple malum prohibitum offenses

 

3) Gun ownership of itself is the intent to commit murder.