Talk:Homemade firearm/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edits being hijacked?

I removed stats from a section, explained why I did, and the window popped up, 'Congratulations, your efforts have been published." Not the sentences I removed were still there. Does someone have a bot on this site to stop edits? 72.203.76.111 (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

No it wasn't hijacked or anything. You possibly just needed to refresh the page, as it was likely displaying the old version from your browser cache. I have reverted the edit anyway thoug, as it most definitely is relevant, and is well sourced. Mako001 (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Reference ideas

These two writings were removed from the further reading section, but they are retained here as they might be useful later. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Data should be removed, as the apparent attempt at comparison is completely flawed

"Gun rights advocates and law enforcement assert that due to the cost and effort required to make privately made firearms, criminals prefer to steal the guns used in crimes, a fact borne out by DOJ statistics.[21] Between 2012 and 2017, ATF estimated over 1.8 million firearms were stolen from individual gun owners, vehicles and residences, and another 40,000 were stolen from FFL's (Federal Firearms Licensee), numbers that vastly dwarf those of privately made firearms linked to crimes.[16]"

This piece of the entry should be removed. The first stat is how many guns were stolen. The second stat is how many ghost guns were used in crimes.

These two things have nothing to do with each other.. The only stat that would be relevant to the second is how many stolen guns were used in crimes. And even that stat for the year 2016 is irrelevant today, when ghost guns are exploding, and their usage in crimes are exploding, according to interviews with several police chiefs throughout the country. 72.203.76.111 (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand this complaint. You state that there is not a causative relationship between gun theft and crime. Yet, a quick read of the paragraph you cite states the majority of guns used in crime. Therefore, I cannot see any other relationship than a causative one. Also, that paragraph explains the opinion of gun rights advocates. As should be expected, it is biased towards their side. JoeBo82 (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Franken-article

Folks, the lead of this article is a bit of a Frankenstein's monster - it is still written as if it is talking about the charged term of "ghost gun" rather than "privately made firearm." To wit:

• "lacks a commercially-applied serial number, rendering the weapon untraceable" - That's not a great way to describe a PMF, as the hallmark of one is that it is privately or home-made for one's individual use. Also, the "untraceable" language is ill-suited to the first sentence of an article that aims to be NPOV.
• PMF is a term used by the U.S. BATFE, so it should be introduced in the lead as something that has a definition, rather than jumping into the political/advocacy fray. Link to BATFE definition.

It would be good to get more ideas on how to construct the lead before doing a major rewrite. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This issues have been resolved. JoeBo82 (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

The lines, "Gun rights advocates and law enforcement assert that due to the cost and effort required to make privately made firearms, criminals prefer to steal the guns used in crimes, a fact borne out by DOJ statistics.[21] Between 2012 and 2017, ATF estimated over 1.8 million firearms were stolen from individual gun owners, vehicles and residences, and another 40,000 were stolen from FFL's (Federal Firearms Licensee), numbers that vastly dwarf those of privately made firearms linked to crimes.[16]" are completely unrelated.

The first stat is how many guns were stolen, the second stat is how many ghost guns were used in crimes (in years well before ghost guns became so common, btw - more bias).

These two stats have nothing to do with each other and the comparison is complete nonsense. The entire segment should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.76.111 (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Wha….? JoeBo82 (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

"Transfer is a felony" is not true

Under federal law, it is perfectly legal to sell or transfer ownership of a non-serialized home-made firearm. BATFE "recommends" the maker apply a serial number, but there is no legal requirement for the maker to do so. What is prohibited is the "manufacture for sale" of multiple firearms, which BATFE classifies as "engaging in the business" of firearms manufacture, an activity that requires the appropriate Federal Firearms License and compliance with the legal and regulatory requirements for applying manufacturer's markings and serial numbers

BATFE has not defined the maximum number of firearms that an individual may legally make for their own use, and/or subsequently sell. But the occasional making of a firearm, and its subsequent sale, are not illegal under federal law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.156.182 (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Likewise there is no requirement that serial numbers be unique. And there are in fact many commercially made guns that have no serial number, and many that have non-unique serial numbers. Therefore, I suppose, a serial number would not be a legally "bulletproof" identification attribute of a firearm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for info. Regarding serial numbers' uniqueness, when you say 'no requirement that they be unique', I am fairly sure that any identifying-number that were NOT unique, could not, by definition, be a serial number. Serial numbers are, by their own intrinsic property, unique. No separate rule explitly stating such is needed, because the result will always be so regardless. Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

heh..following up on that.. the lede sentence for our article Serial number reads: 'A serial number is a unique identifier assigned incrementally or sequentially to an item, to uniquely identify it.' well, there you go ;) Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Chiming in because the topic is interesting to me and I’m pedantic, but serial numbers have to be unique for a particular model made by a particular manufacturer. For example, Colt can produce a Model 1911 .45 caliber pistol with the serial number 999111, while Ruger can manufacture a LCR .38 caliber revolver with the serial number 999111. That’s no problem. Colt could not, however, manufacture two Model 1911 .45 pistols both with the serial number 999111. Additionally, Colt and Bushmaster could both manufacture an AR-15 rifle with the serial number 999111 and that would be no problem. Part of the marking requirements (that mandate serial numbers), also require that the legal name of the manufacturer and city/state of manufacture be included. So that would dispel non-unique serial numbers across different manufacturers/models.

The Wikipedia article on serial numbers describes non-unique serial numbers as well. You are ignoring the fact that guns have been made in the U.S. for over 200 years - And that the manufacture of guns was not controlled strictly in the U.S. for most of those years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:36 (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

These issues have been resolved. JoeBo82 (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Bias

Moved from Talk:Homemade firearm

This page has a lot of bias, quoting news articles of the left-wing and using shock terms like "ghost guns" as opposed to "privately made firearms" as the ATF calls them. Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/05/21/2021-10058/definition-of-frame-or-receiver-and-identification-of-firearms Asmoaesl (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

These issues have been resolved. JoeBo82 (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Ghost guns are weapons

A number of sources describe ghost guns as "weapons". @Miguel Escopeta: just changed all instances of "weapons" in the article to "firearms", labelling the edit a "reduction of inflammatory wording".[1] I don't see anything inflammatory about calling a gun a "weapon". Unless there's a good reason for this change I'll put back the original term. Felsic2 (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The reason is that "Weapon" is dog whistle speak for "evil boomstick". It is widely deprecated. All NRA Certified Instructor classes are taught with a fine of $1 per each time anyone in the class, instructor or student, uses the word "weapon", for example. The reason is that "Weapon" is what anti-gun rights personnel attempt to brush across everything firearm related. It is perceived to be evil in the public's eye. On the other hand, the terms "firearm", "rifle", "pistol", "drilling", and "shotgun", are all fine. Neither positive or negative in denotation or connotation. The word "Weapon" is forbidden, because it carries an "evil boomstick" connotation, and is only used by those opposed to gun rights in favor of gun control. "Weapon" is only used in military usages, not in civilian usages. There is a good reason to avoid the use of the word weapon in this article. Unless, the reason is attempt to push a Gun Control agenda. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This isn't an NRA class, and so NRA rules don't apply. The sources say "weapon". Do you have any sources that explain this POV you're talking about? Felsic2 (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ghost guns are not military firearms. Military firearms are weapons. Civilian firearms, which include ghost guns, are firearms, not weapons. OSS firearms, e.g, the .45 ACP Liberator FP-45 Liberator, is a ghost gun firearm, too, and not a weapon. It had no serial numbers of manufacturer's name on it, either. On the other hand, if the intent is to tar commonly owned civilian household firearms with an evil characteristic, then "weapon" is the preferred biased word of choice used by anti-gun rights writers. Avoiding bias is supposed to be the rule on Wikipedia. But, if biased language is your preference, then it would appear your POV is showing. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I've never heard of this distinction between military and civilian firearms. I don't know why the OSS guns would not be weapons. (If anyone actually calls them "ghost guns" then we could include them in the article.) Again, do you have any objective sources which describe this POV issue? Personally, I don't see how "weapon" is a biased term for a firearm. It is used in many of the sources, which are mostly mainstream media. The burden is on you to justify the change. Felsic2 (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Weapon and firearm are not synonyms. There are many weapons which are not firearms. There are firearms which are not weapons.The entire concept of ghost guns is a legal issue, dealing with FFLs, serialization etc. These are concepts deeply rooted in the legal definition of "firearm", and regulations of firearms. Bringing "weapon" in is a distraction - although I freely agree that a great proportion of ghost guns are ultimately "weapons" many are not. pre-ghost guns (80% lowers for example) are both not a firearm, and not functional. They are definitely not weapons, unless you intend on throwing it at someone. Go from 80% to 100%, and you just became a firearm - even if you are still not functional. There are many many ghost gun "firearms" which cannot actually be fired, because they have not had triggers, barrels, or other parts installed. They are not "weapons" in any meaningful sense. But they are definitely firearms. Add in the additional parts to make the gun actually fire, and it may or may not be a weapon (is a hunting rifle a weapon? an Olympic target rifle?) - This article is discussing "ghost guns" at all stages of existence, and should strive to not be ambiguous or confusing as to what it means. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Felsic that I don't understand why OSS guns would not be a weapon. It was intended for armed resistance during a war. That seems to be the very core of "weapon-ness". If it is a ghost gun or not is a harder question - "ghost gun" as a term seems to mean recently created guns, manufactured in the US, which are in the US, which are not subject to certain firearm regulations by virtue of being made by the owner. There are many other guns which also don't follow those laws, but they don't seem to be generally referred to as "ghost guns" - antiques (or any gun made prior to the regulations), guns which are made overseas (eg, the vast majority of AK47s in the world do not have serial numbers, but I don't think anyone is calling them Ghost Guns) ResultingConstant (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The common definition of "firearm" is that it's a weapon:

a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms[2]

a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder. [3]

A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.[4]

I'd certainly say that any object designed and buil for the purpose of harming a living thing would qualify as a weapon. There are a few exceptions, like flare guns, but those are obvious. Target guns are borderline, but no one is talking about building ghost guns for the purposes of competitive sport shooting. The objection to referring to guns as "weapons" seems like political correctness taken to an extreme. Felsic2 (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Your argument carries some water. I think some of ME's changes we probably overly strong, but not all of them. For example, I think the very first one "a firearm without serial numbers" is absolutely correct, because we are dealing with regulations, and those regulations are particularly about firearms. On the other hand "illicit weapons trade" seems more natural. as well as "Tracing ghost guns used in crimes is much harder than tracing serialized weapons" due to the context. Others are more borderline. "Some ghost guns are AR-15 style weapons/firearms" I could see argued both ways. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

but, you are quoting the dictionary definition of firearm. ghost guns are specifically used in the context of the legal definition of firearm. The dictionary definition and the legal definition are not the same. also, you missed the a good deal of my argument, which is very relevant to the content already in the article, and cuts against your argument.  : "The same vendor predicted he would sold 75,000 unfinished receivers in 2014. The ATF raided his store that year and confiscated 6,000 receiver blanks which they said were too close to finished units" The ATF determined that the unfinished receivers were firearms. But they weren't weapons. Nobody could fire them. They were things that could be turned into weapons with little effort though. Even a fully manufactured ar15 lower isn't a weapon until it gets a trigger and a barrel. But it is a firearm. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think most reasonable people would look at a lower receiver and identify it as a firearm. That's a legal definition for the purposes of regulation. Note that I never called those receivers "weapons" anyway. I'm willing to compromise. It was the sweeping change that seemed so inappropriate. Could you be the neutral arbiter and make the changes as you think best? Felsic2 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You think people look at lower receivers and would call it a weapon? Most people (eg, not gun people, and not gun control people) would probalby have no idea what it was at all. I agree absolutely that "thats a legal definition for the purposes of regulation". thats my whole point. "Ghost guns" is a term used exclusively in the context of discussing regulations, (purported) avoidance of those regulations, and proposed changes to those regulations. The regulatory definition is the important one. Yes, I will make some changes to see if we can compromise. Also, I think "gun" can be used as a more compromise term as not carrying either side's baggage, and being the most common term. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You lost my on how an OSS Liberator is not a weapon. It's a textbook definition of one. We certainly did not make them to sit on a mantle and be admired, they were used to help France rid the country of Germans.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected on one point. The Philippines reference does tweak my informal definition to remove the "made in the US" part. If that same gun had stayed in the Philippines, would it still be a ghost gun though? ResultingConstant (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I've gotta run so I can't look it up again, but I just saw an article about the Philippine gun industry, which includes many small workshops. One of the issues there is the number of guns produced without serial numbers, which authorities hope to reduce. I didn't use the article as a source because it didn't use the term "ghost guns" to describe them. Felsic2 (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is more evidence that the term is specifically in reference to US regulations then no? Should we perhaps indicate that in the lede? "The term is (primarily) used (in the united states) by" ? ResultingConstant (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable with us drawing our own conclusions without a source. We could add "US" to more sentences, where appropriate. That may convey to readers the extent of the usage. Felsic2 (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The NFA (National Firearms Act) uses the term "weapon" to describe a class of items that include legally determined firearms and "other" items not legally determined to be firearms but which nevertheless concern the firearms jurisdiction of the ATF (implicitly excluding alcohol or tobacco). This includes specifically receiver blanks and the determination on a per-case basis of whether an item is a firearm or other weapon that must be regulated (registered or otherwise kept strictly under chain of custody regulations for federal firearms licensees). If anything is to be considered an inflammatory term, "Ghost Gun" would have to be "it", since it has no meaning under the law, and attaches transcendental status to the object in question, which in any case would be deemed a FIREARM by the ATF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.123.214.5 (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

These issues have been resolved. JoeBo82 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Industry use

@Mike Searson: Re: [5]. The source I was relying upon says:

The firearm industry calls them "ghost guns," which means they're made using different parts, don't have serial numbers, and don't require background checks.[6]

I have no idea what every member of the industry says. I'm just going by what the sources say. Is there another term for the same items that's preferred in industry circles? Felsic2 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I hear you, those news people really have their finger on the pulse of the industry( that was heavy sarcasm, by the way). No wonder people are so misinformed.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a tough nut. Presumably at least some industry people do (Defense Distributed). Trying to split hairs on who is "legitimate industry" is going to become a No true Scotsman issue. I think saying "some of the firearms industry" is perfectly defend-able though. ResultingConstant (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If there are no other sources touching on the matter, I'm inclined to restore the material with the modification suggested by ResultingConstant, perhaps made general to the entire list of users. That is "The term is used by some...". Felsic2 (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Since there was were no other comments I've gone ahead and made the edit. Felsic2 (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

These issues have been resolved. JoeBo82 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Privately Made Firearms NOT "Ghost Gun".

Ghost gun is a deliberate and inflammatory term used gun control advocates and the marketers of these products. The correct nomenclature agreed by the ATF (4/08/2021) and U.S Senate (5/11/2021) is 'Privately Made Firearm'. I will personally see to it that any attempt to change the title of this article to "Ghost Gun" is reversed immediately for being inaccurate and vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSovietYankee (talk • contribs) 03:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@JoeBo82: Does it need to be in Title Case? Privately made firearm would be more consistent with WP:TITLEFORMAT and usage outside of legal documents, such as [7]. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 07:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Please consider WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia cares less about official terms (and certainly isn't bound by the officialdom of the United States) guidance directs us towards what reliable sources call thing. Note:

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65170507
2. https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/2023/04/13/ghost-gun-maker-handed-harshest-prison-sentence-in-canada
3. https://wlos.com/news/local/huge-increase-in-ghost-guns-recovered-during-other-crimes-in-asheville-1000-percent
4. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/15/nyregion/nyc-men-charged-ghost-guns.html
5. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/3d-printed-guns-canada-increase-1.6708049

CT55555(talk) 03:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

These issues have been resolved. JoeBo82 (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Globalise template

I added the globalize template as this article seems to overwhelmingly present a United States centric view. CT55555(talk) 03:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)