California school shooting shines light on murky 'ghost gun' world(reuters.com)
reuters.com
California school shooting shines light on murky 'ghost gun' world
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-shooting-ghostgun-idUSKBN1XW1AL
57 comments
Writing and journalism have gone to hell because we don't pay journalists/writers like we used to. I'm increasingly seeing these sorts of complaints. When I point out the connection between lack of adequate pay and poor writing/journalism, I get ridiculous rebuttals about how "That's their job to fact check!" And when I tell people that expecting good writing without paying the writers is essentially an expectation of slave labor, people get offended.
I'm a writer. I'm dirt poor. I can't get adequate funding for my blogs. When I complain about my poverty, I get told to "get a real job." When I point out the rise of the Gig Economy and the fact that we have worse income inequality than in The Gilded Age, people mumble some other bullshit excuse and refuse to hear that these supposed (well paid) "real jobs" are in rather short supply, so, no, it's not laziness on my part.
It's a broken model. If we want quality writing, we need to find some way to pay writers for their work so they can fact check and spell check etc.
I'm a writer. I'm dirt poor. I can't get adequate funding for my blogs. When I complain about my poverty, I get told to "get a real job." When I point out the rise of the Gig Economy and the fact that we have worse income inequality than in The Gilded Age, people mumble some other bullshit excuse and refuse to hear that these supposed (well paid) "real jobs" are in rather short supply, so, no, it's not laziness on my part.
It's a broken model. If we want quality writing, we need to find some way to pay writers for their work so they can fact check and spell check etc.
Can you explain the mistake the author made in more detail? I think he's confusing "it's legal to own an 80% lower and some gun parts with no serial number until you mill the lower" with "it's legal to own the resulting gun", but I'm not a gun owner and don't know the law.
What I'd suspect is happening:
In California you need the state DOJ's permission to mill an 80% lower, then they give you a serial number that you have to engrave on it within 10 days.
Other states have different laws. Some are similar to CA but most are less restrictive. There are places where it is true to say that "Such firearms have no serial numbers, and ... legally bypass background checks and registration regulations." But the author is conflating the national laws with the laws for manufacturing in California (without mentioning that what happened in California is actually multiple felonies). It's either ignorant, unintentionally misleading, or pushing a narrative.
In California you need the state DOJ's permission to mill an 80% lower, then they give you a serial number that you have to engrave on it within 10 days.
Other states have different laws. Some are similar to CA but most are less restrictive. There are places where it is true to say that "Such firearms have no serial numbers, and ... legally bypass background checks and registration regulations." But the author is conflating the national laws with the laws for manufacturing in California (without mentioning that what happened in California is actually multiple felonies). It's either ignorant, unintentionally misleading, or pushing a narrative.
I think your assessment is correct. AFAIK, there’s no legal definition of an 80% lower, and the only cases I know of that have tested the idea had to do with completely milled lowers which were then filled with plastic to make it easier to mill. The feds didn’t like this, so I don’t think those are sold commercially any more.
I believe OP is right, though I’m not a resident of CA: you can have a non-functional piece of metal or a registered functional “firearm” (which the feds say is the lower). A functional, unregistered lower would be against CA law.
In other states, like neighboring AZ, there’s no issue purchasing an unregistered, non-functional lower, finishing it into a functional piece, and then using it for private use (including non-commercial sale).
I believe OP is right, though I’m not a resident of CA: you can have a non-functional piece of metal or a registered functional “firearm” (which the feds say is the lower). A functional, unregistered lower would be against CA law.
In other states, like neighboring AZ, there’s no issue purchasing an unregistered, non-functional lower, finishing it into a functional piece, and then using it for private use (including non-commercial sale).
Yea maybe they should make some laws that require all guns to have a serial number, that should prevent all this... oh wait
It wouldn’t make for a very interesting article if the author wrote “criminal breaks the law”.
It’s because they’re pushing an agenda. It’s either their own or one that has been blessed by a superior.
Gell-Mann Amnesia!
https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/
https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/
As technology advances and information gets more and more effectively disseminated, not just guns but weapons of all types (including chemical and biological weapons, drone-mounted and robot-mounted weapons, poisons, explosives, etc) will become easier and easier for DIY enthusiasts to manufacture at home or from kits.
I'm not sure what can be done about this, ultimately, short of turning society in to a completely totalitarian surveillance state where everyone's actions are fully monitored and controlled by the state and there is effectively no privacy.
Those who are trying to control technology are fighting a losing battle.
I'm not sure what can be done about this, ultimately, short of turning society in to a completely totalitarian surveillance state where everyone's actions are fully monitored and controlled by the state and there is effectively no privacy.
Those who are trying to control technology are fighting a losing battle.
The solution probably lies in preventing people from wanting to do so much damage in the first place. The fact that it is such a common occurrence for Americans to want to shoot up schools says a lot.
As I always say - the gun isn’t the problem. Someone waking up one morning and going “gee I’d like to kill a lot of people today” is the problem. That’s a cultural and mental health issue.
> the gun isn’t the problem
Illogical. Gun ownership is truely a significant part of the problem. Countries with low gun ownership rates have measurably low rates of deaths by guns. Your meme needs to be eradicated.
"Among developed nations, the US is far and away the most homicidal — in large part due to the easy access many Americans have to firearms." — https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/u...
Illogical. Gun ownership is truely a significant part of the problem. Countries with low gun ownership rates have measurably low rates of deaths by guns. Your meme needs to be eradicated.
"Among developed nations, the US is far and away the most homicidal — in large part due to the easy access many Americans have to firearms." — https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/u...
The Vox piece is garbage. There is only one bit of evidence that could at least support a causation between gun ownership and gun crime, and that’s the chart comparing gun ownership rate by state. But the chart Vox uses lumps in people exercising their own right to end their lives with gun crime. The chart of gun ownership rate versus homicide rate shows no correlation: https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-a...
Additionally, the international comparisons ignore the fact that the US, like the rest of the new world, has long had higher homicide rates than Europe, even before gun control and even back when guns were prevalent in Europe.
About 43% of American households own a gun. Norway, France, and Canada are all above 25%. Finland is at 50%. https://www.ippnw.org/pdf/mgs/7-1-cukier.pdf. Articles like those on Vox tend to focus on number of guns (Americans tend to stockpile them), but the figures for percentage of households with access to a gun aren’t as radically different in the US as in some other countries.
But homicide rates in the US are radically different, and always have been. The homicide rate in France has been 1 per 100,000 or less since the 1940s. The lowest the homicide rate in the US has ever been is 4-5x higher than that.
Additionally, the international comparisons ignore the fact that the US, like the rest of the new world, has long had higher homicide rates than Europe, even before gun control and even back when guns were prevalent in Europe.
About 43% of American households own a gun. Norway, France, and Canada are all above 25%. Finland is at 50%. https://www.ippnw.org/pdf/mgs/7-1-cukier.pdf. Articles like those on Vox tend to focus on number of guns (Americans tend to stockpile them), but the figures for percentage of households with access to a gun aren’t as radically different in the US as in some other countries.
But homicide rates in the US are radically different, and always have been. The homicide rate in France has been 1 per 100,000 or less since the 1940s. The lowest the homicide rate in the US has ever been is 4-5x higher than that.
Logically:
If there were no guns in the US, there would be zero gun homicides.
Therefore guns are part of the problem.
Any statement that says guns are not part of the problem must be incorrect.
If there were no guns in the US, there would be zero gun homicides.
Therefore guns are part of the problem.
Any statement that says guns are not part of the problem must be incorrect.
I don't disagree with your conclusion but your logic is incorrect.
If there was no food or water in the US then there would also be zero gun homicides. Food and water are obviously not a cause or related to a problem but the logic is exactly the same.
If there was no food or water in the US then there would also be zero gun homicides. Food and water are obviously not a cause or related to a problem but the logic is exactly the same.
But you can’t get rid of guns in the US. All you can modulate is the rate of legal gun ownership.
The gun is still a problem. Its just only half the problem. A mentally ill person with a knife is still bad but an order of magnitude less so.
The gun is as much the problem as the truck used in Nice. Killing a lot of people is easy.
With the right tools. Arguably unrestricted vehicle access should not be available in densely populated areas. They are basically mass murder machines even with well intentioned drivers.
I was about to disagree with your neighboring comment and point out that you were being inconsistent, but it turns out you weren't.
I disagree with your worldview in this case, but want to let you know that I respect you for having a well formed and reasonably consistent opinion. I only wish that everyone else who voted took the time to think things through half so thoroughly - the world would likely be a much more functional place.
I disagree with your worldview in this case, but want to let you know that I respect you for having a well formed and reasonably consistent opinion. I only wish that everyone else who voted took the time to think things through half so thoroughly - the world would likely be a much more functional place.
Welp, that shark wasn’t going to jump itself...
But now all you’ve done is cut off the beaks of the chickens in the farm, so they can’t blind each other, the chicken are still in a very, very bad mental state.
Even a fairly healthy society will have a few bad actors. The solution is to provide care for people so the majority do not want to cause harm and then prevent needless ability to cause harm so the occasional crazy person isn't able to do much damage.
Can you comment which specific DSM mental disorder diagnosis someone expresses when they wake up one morning and go "gee I'd like to kill a lot of people today"?
I think the point is precisely that there isn’t one today, and if all we ever do is play whack-a-mole with dangerous things we aren’t likely to find one in the near future either.
I recognize that, which is why I asked the parent commenter to fill in details on their thought. Hopefully they recognize that it isn't a treatable mental disease driving gun violence, and rather reducing access to guns will reduce violent gun death. Arguably anitsocialites could use other means, but only at much higher costs.
> Those who are trying to control technology are fighting a losing battle.
However, there is a vast difference between having to fire up a lathe and machine a barrel vs putting together a kit of a half-dozen or so primary parts.
By analogy, most people can put together a computer. Only a very few can actually design and manufacture a motherboard even though it is relatively cheap to do so nowadays.
In addition, most people who are going to go on a shooting rampage probably don't have the skills to operate a lathe or milling machine.
However, there is a vast difference between having to fire up a lathe and machine a barrel vs putting together a kit of a half-dozen or so primary parts.
By analogy, most people can put together a computer. Only a very few can actually design and manufacture a motherboard even though it is relatively cheap to do so nowadays.
In addition, most people who are going to go on a shooting rampage probably don't have the skills to operate a lathe or milling machine.
The point isn’t that there are multiple ways to get a gun, it’s more that there are a lot of ways to kill people and advances in technology and dissemination of information is going to bring more of them within reach of the average homicidal person.
> it’s more that there are a lot of ways to kill people and advances in technology and dissemination of information is going to bring more of them within reach of the average homicidal person.
I don't buy this.
The "average" homicidal person generally isn't that capable. And everything you mentioned requires at least above average skill levels in quite a few different areas.
Yes, a smart homicidal maniac may have a lot more options, but most homicidal people simply aren't that smart.
I don't buy this.
The "average" homicidal person generally isn't that capable. And everything you mentioned requires at least above average skill levels in quite a few different areas.
Yes, a smart homicidal maniac may have a lot more options, but most homicidal people simply aren't that smart.
The degree of planning and preparation that goes into the infamous mass shootings does suggest that they are capable.
The importance of this point really can't be understated.
I used to be mildly frustrated that my civil rights were being eroded but it was largely an abstract issue. Now, I increasingly wonder how we're going to cope with significantly more accessible and capable technology. It doesn't seem like anyone is putting much effort into discovering or addressing the underlying causes from where I'm standing; I don't see how this can end well.
I used to be mildly frustrated that my civil rights were being eroded but it was largely an abstract issue. Now, I increasingly wonder how we're going to cope with significantly more accessible and capable technology. It doesn't seem like anyone is putting much effort into discovering or addressing the underlying causes from where I'm standing; I don't see how this can end well.
YES!!! Why is this concept so rarely discussed? Maybe because it appears to be unsolvable? Or it doesn’t as readily split along party lines?
Typically a gun assembled from parts would still have the lower receiver stamped with an ID.
Pretty sure the kits they are referring to are “unfinished or 80% lowers” which become functioning with a trivial amount of drilling and cutting and are essentially sold as raw material instead of a part.
It’s not a trivial amount. I’m in the process of finishing an 80% AR-15 lower. Deep pocket milling with a hand router and crappy endmill just sucks.
The glock 80% market is blowing up with very very easy to finish kits. It can be done with a hand drill and an xacto knife in under a hour.
The shooter in the article probably built a 1911 from an 80% kit and the kits are getting easier to finish. The virginia tech shooter used two pistols I believe.
Just stating that some pistol kits are very easy to finish as opposed to an ar/ak
The shooter in the article probably built a 1911 from an 80% kit and the kits are getting easier to finish. The virginia tech shooter used two pistols I believe.
Just stating that some pistol kits are very easy to finish as opposed to an ar/ak
I’d think a 1911 would require more, given they seem to be so finicky. Maybe that’s next on my project list. Glocks, meh. Never cared for them.
The ATF raided some shop in CA specializing in polymer lowers. Claimed they were too easy to finish, though they still met the 80% standard.
The ATF raided some shop in CA specializing in polymer lowers. Claimed they were too easy to finish, though they still met the 80% standard.
You can buy unfinished lowers ("80% lower receivers") with no serial number, since they are not yet functional lower receivers. It's really easy to buy these, and not too difficult to finish them. Then you have a 100% off the record firearm.
You don’t even need to buy the lower. 3D Printed lowers work just find. In addition you can also just make a mold out of sand. Melt down a bunch of aluminum cans and cast a lower.
This stuff isn’t rocket science.
This stuff isn’t rocket science.
A cast lower would still require a non-trivial amount of machining to get it within tolerances. Forged lowers are still machined.
I've seen people with no prior experience do it just fine. I feel like people underestimate what average humans are capable of with only meager determination.
1. Why did he do that? 2. Wait. What registrations? The Constitution clearly forbids any kind of gun registries.
Not the constitution but federal law prevent registries. California has long since bypassed this law by creating the DROS system. Dealer Record of Sale. Then enacting universal background checks. Essentially forcing any firearm transfer to be recorded. So while you can’t get in trouble for having an “unregistered” forearm. You can get in trouble for transferring one without going through DROS, as well as importing OT building without DROS.
I'm not American but where exactly does the constitution forbid gun registries?
My bad. It's a federal law derived from the Constitution that forbids such registries: The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
"Infringed" can certainly be read as any process that gets in the way of gun purchasing.
"Infringed" can certainly be read as any process that gets in the way of gun purchasing.
That's basically the maximalist interpretation and that's not the one US law works under at all. Under that all of the current restrictions on purchase would be illegal including felon, drug addict, domestic violence, and non-citizen and those are strong, I don't think I've seen any meaningful challenge to those today. Buying from any legal store you must go through a NICS check and can be denied or delayed. [0]
[0] Except in cases where you have a CCW (which you go through a background check to get already), a purchase permit (many states require a check from the sherrif or similar office before buying a handgun) or some other similar stand in that does something significantly similar to the NICS checks.
[0] Except in cases where you have a CCW (which you go through a background check to get already), a purchase permit (many states require a check from the sherrif or similar office before buying a handgun) or some other similar stand in that does something significantly similar to the NICS checks.
> That's basically the maximalist interpretation and that's not the one US law works under at all.
It’s not a “maximalist” interpretation. With nearly any other federal right, we’d agree that maintaining a registry of people exercising that right would impermissibly create a chilling effect. You can be a member of a minority religion, but only if you place yourself on a registry! You can exercise freedom of speech or assembly, but only if you put yourself on a registry. It’s not maximalist, it’s giving an enumerated constitutional right a full and fair reading.[1]
I do agree that the existing precedent in the area has been impoverished. The Supreme Court has important work to do correcting that.
[1] The framers were gun nuts and would have been troubled by the decline of gun ownership. The idea that you have a civic duty to own firearms would be closer to the original intent than the idea that the government can limit gun ownership to formal militias.
> Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
It’s not a “maximalist” interpretation. With nearly any other federal right, we’d agree that maintaining a registry of people exercising that right would impermissibly create a chilling effect. You can be a member of a minority religion, but only if you place yourself on a registry! You can exercise freedom of speech or assembly, but only if you put yourself on a registry. It’s not maximalist, it’s giving an enumerated constitutional right a full and fair reading.[1]
I do agree that the existing precedent in the area has been impoverished. The Supreme Court has important work to do correcting that.
[1] The framers were gun nuts and would have been troubled by the decline of gun ownership. The idea that you have a civic duty to own firearms would be closer to the original intent than the idea that the government can limit gun ownership to formal militias.
> Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
Surely putting a person on a registry and putting a gun on a registry are different things? A gun is physical object, it has a location that is independent of its owner's location. The US doesn't keep a registry of people with minority religions but it does keep registries of religious buildings where people congregate.
Gun registry proposals universally require recording the gun’s owner: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-own...
The US doesn’t keep registries of religious buildings either. There’s obviously titles and whatnot for buildings. But it would likely be deemed a constitutional violation to require registration of every place that would be used to hold religious services. Some in Germany have proposed a “mosque registry”: https://www.dw.com/en/german-politician-wants-islam-law-and-....
The US doesn’t keep registries of religious buildings either. There’s obviously titles and whatnot for buildings. But it would likely be deemed a constitutional violation to require registration of every place that would be used to hold religious services. Some in Germany have proposed a “mosque registry”: https://www.dw.com/en/german-politician-wants-islam-law-and-....
I believe religious buildings in the US are only registered due to tax status? I'm under no obligation to register my house if I start holding congregations here.
A much more accurate analogy might be a registry for religious paraphernalia (crosses, rosaries, etc), including information about the purchaser. Such items are tied to an individual, and thus serve as a very effective proxy.
A much more accurate analogy might be a registry for religious paraphernalia (crosses, rosaries, etc), including information about the purchaser. Such items are tied to an individual, and thus serve as a very effective proxy.
In the same way that money gets in the way of the right of people to own property.
The constitution enumerates what the federal government is allowed to do. The bill of rights adds further restrictions.
Not the constitution there are federal laws that prevent gun registries.
Anyways, literally the first sentence of the article is false[1]. Self-made firearms in California are required to have a serial number, must be put into the state registry (a somewhat byzantine process), and are illegal to resell[2]. In other words, the gun is either legal OR untraceable. It can't be both at the same time.
[1]: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/consu...
[2]: For ones manufactured after 2018, your family can't even inherit them when you die— they have to be surrendered to the police for destruction. If you have a relative you really don't like, you should definitely bequeath them your homemade guns— there's a non-zero chance they'll end up in prison for possession.