5 ms·

California school shooting shines light on murky 'ghost gun' world

23 points by motiw 7y ago

ndesaulniers 7y ago
Typically a gun assembled from parts would still have the lower receiver stamped with an ID.
- craftyguy 7y ago
  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.
  - digi59404 7y ago
    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.
    - madengr 7y ago
      A cast lower would still require a non-trivial amount of machining to get it within tolerances. Forged lowers are still machined.
      - mkhpalm 7y ago
        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.
- milkthefat 7y ago
  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.
  - madengr 7y ago
    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.
    - nlp_1 7y ago
      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
      - madengr 7y ago
        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.
pmoriarty 7y ago
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.
- baroffoos 7y ago
  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.
  - digi59404 7y ago
    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.
    - baroffoos 7y ago
      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.
      - t-writescode 7y ago
        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.
        baroffoos 7y ago
gddvhy 7y ago
1. Why did he do that? 2. Wait. What registrations? The Constitution clearly forbids any kind of gun registries.
- mantap 7y ago
  I'm not American but where exactly does the constitution forbid gun registries?
  - sam36 7y ago
    "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.
    - lumberjack 7y ago
      In the same way that money gets in the way of the right of people to own property.
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      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.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        > 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
Rebelgecko 7y ago
Why are journalists writing about guns so bad? I don't want to totally derail the thread by going down the "fake news" rabbit hole, but when an article about something I'm marginally knowledgeable about has huge inaccuracies, it makes me wonder: is it just difficult to fact-check this particular topic? Or are all news articles equally untrustworthy and I'm just not informed enough to realize it? 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/consumer-alert.pdf 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.
- sam36 7y ago
  Yea maybe they should make some laws that require all guns to have a serial number, that should prevent all this... oh wait
- CountSessine 7y ago
  Gell-Mann Amnesia! https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/
- xwdv 7y ago
  It’s because they’re pushing an agenda. It’s either their own or one that has been blessed by a superior.
- strken 7y ago
  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.

23 points by motiw 7y ago

ndesaulniers 7y ago

Typically a gun assembled from parts would still have the lower receiver stamped with an ID.

craftyguy 7y ago
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.
- digi59404 7y ago
  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.
  - madengr 7y ago
    A cast lower would still require a non-trivial amount of machining to get it within tolerances. Forged lowers are still machined.
    - mkhpalm 7y ago
      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.
milkthefat 7y ago
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.
- madengr 7y ago
  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.
  - nlp_1 7y ago
    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
    - madengr 7y ago
      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.

pmoriarty 7y ago

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.

baroffoos 7y ago
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.
- digi59404 7y ago
  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.
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    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.
    - t-writescode 7y ago
      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.
      - baroffoos 7y ago

gddvhy 7y ago

1. Why did he do that? 2. Wait. What registrations? The Constitution clearly forbids any kind of gun registries.

mantap 7y ago
I'm not American but where exactly does the constitution forbid gun registries?
- sam36 7y ago
  "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.
  - lumberjack 7y ago
    In the same way that money gets in the way of the right of people to own property.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    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.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      > 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

Rebelgecko 7y ago

Why are journalists writing about guns so bad? I don't want to totally derail the thread by going down the "fake news" rabbit hole, but when an article about something I'm marginally knowledgeable about has huge inaccuracies, it makes me wonder: is it just difficult to fact-check this particular topic? Or are all news articles equally untrustworthy and I'm just not informed enough to realize it? 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/consumer-alert.pdf 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.

sam36 7y ago
Yea maybe they should make some laws that require all guns to have a serial number, that should prevent all this... oh wait
CountSessine 7y ago
Gell-Mann Amnesia! https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/
xwdv 7y ago
It’s because they’re pushing an agenda. It’s either their own or one that has been blessed by a superior.
strken 7y ago
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.