Do the background checks for gun purchases really matter much anymore??

[Bronzeage]

I ran into this gadget from an article by a reporter who actually built a gun with it. A gunsmith said the part looked good, the gun actually worked and fired 100 rounds successfully.

You should really stop trying to store your sources in the vault of your memory. It isn't nearly as good as you think it is.

I scanned about 20 different articles referring to it and it has quickly become apparent that most if not all of these articles are, in fact, press releases with no actual reporting going on. And maybe I'm missing something, but there's only one reference to a weapon firing 100 rounds successfully:

I grabbed a 100 round box of Winchester white box .45 cal. ammo from Wal-Mart and couple grease gun mags and I headed out to the field. I had some .45 dummy rounds that I tested out first to insure the rifle would load a round properly, as well as eject it with no problems. There were no problems with the dummy rounds, so I popped in a mag with live ammo. I was kinda leery at first, because I didn't know what to expect since I had never shot a .45 caliber AR15. I shot the first round, no problems. I shot the 2nd round, no problems. I ended up shooting the whole 100 round box of ammo without one problem what so ever. Shooting the .45 caliber round in the AR15 is SWEEEET!!! I enjoyed shooting it so much that I grabbed the extra ammo from my concealed carry, and loaded up another grease gun mag. I didn't know the AR45 was going to be this much fun, otherwise I would have grabbed another couple hundred rounds. The cool thing is, the AR45 isn't very loud at all. I started out shooting with hearing protection, but half way through I decided I didn't them it. It is no where near as loud as a .45 pistol. After the testing of the AR45, all I can say is AWESOME!!!!

He's not a gunsmith. He's a hobbyist with a background in aerospace engineering and significant amount of experience working with CNC machines; interestingly, he didn't use a Ghost Gun machine to manufacture the lower receiver.

You've conflated two COMPLETELY different stories in your head and one of them isn't doesn't even seem to be legit.

The basic argument against gun control laws has always been, "Gun control laws are ineffective because it's too easy to circumvent gun control laws." Stories of how easy it is to obtain or create a gun are not intended to illustrate needed improvements in gun laws. They serve to show gun laws are pointless.

In this country, we have a lot of people who have no problem hiding behind the skirts of "law abiding gun owners". They will not abide any regulation which removes guns from criminals, or reduce the risk of injury to children from guns, if it means access to guns for "law abiding gun owners" is somehow reduced.

As a nation, we believe the right to bear arms, which in this time and age means, "easy access to firearms," is more than worth the death, injury, and damage done by guns. We don't care how many people are hurt or killed. We have an encyclopedia of ready excuses to show why we need to have a gun at hand, no matter what the reality and the results.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The basic argument against gun control laws has always been, "Gun control laws are ineffective because it's too easy to circumvent gun control laws." Stories of how easy it is to obtain or create a gun are not intended to illustrate needed improvements in gun laws. They serve to show gun laws are pointless.

In this country, we have a lot of people who have no problem hiding behind the skirts of "law abiding gun owners". They will not abide any regulation which removes guns from criminals, or reduce the risk of injury to children from guns, if it means access to guns for "law abiding gun owners" is somehow reduced.

As a nation, we believe the right to bear arms, which in this time and age means, "easy access to firearms," is more than worth the death, injury, and damage done by guns. We don't care how many people are hurt or killed. We have an encyclopedia of ready excuses to show why we need to have a gun at hand, no matter what the reality and the results.

I don't think they are pointless. Rather, I think the only laws that will matter have to be aimed at possession rather than at acquisition.

- - - Updated - - -

I ran into this gadget from an article by a reporter who actually built a gun with it. A gunsmith said the part looked good, the gun actually worked and fired 100 rounds successfully.

You should really stop trying to store your sources in the vault of your memory. It isn't nearly as good as you think it is.

I scanned about 20 different articles referring to it and it has quickly become apparent that most if not all of these articles are, in fact, press releases with no actual reporting going on. And maybe I'm missing something, but there's only one reference to a weapon firing 100 rounds successfully:

I grabbed a 100 round box of Winchester white box .45 cal. ammo from Wal-Mart and couple grease gun mags and I headed out to the field. I had some .45 dummy rounds that I tested out first to insure the rifle would load a round properly, as well as eject it with no problems. There were no problems with the dummy rounds, so I popped in a mag with live ammo. I was kinda leery at first, because I didn't know what to expect since I had never shot a .45 caliber AR15. I shot the first round, no problems. I shot the 2nd round, no problems. I ended up shooting the whole 100 round box of ammo without one problem what so ever. Shooting the .45 caliber round in the AR15 is SWEEEET!!! I enjoyed shooting it so much that I grabbed the extra ammo from my concealed carry, and loaded up another grease gun mag. I didn't know the AR45 was going to be this much fun, otherwise I would have grabbed another couple hundred rounds. The cool thing is, the AR45 isn't very loud at all. I started out shooting with hearing protection, but half way through I decided I didn't them it. It is no where near as loud as a .45 pistol. After the testing of the AR45, all I can say is AWESOME!!!!

He's not a gunsmith. He's a hobbyist with a background in aerospace engineering and significant amount of experience working with CNC machines; interestingly, he didn't use a Ghost Gun machine to manufacture the lower receiver.

You've conflated two COMPLETELY different stories in your head and one of them isn't doesn't even seem to be legit.

Because you fixated on the 100 rounds you missed the article.

http://www.wired.com/2015/06/i-made-an-untraceable-ar-15-ghost-gun/

 

[Bronzeage]

I don't think they are pointless. Rather, I think the only laws that will matter have to be aimed at possession rather than at acquisition.

/

That is the point, or rather the lack of it. We will not tolerate a law which makes really difficult for a criminal or lunatic to obtain a firearm, if it means it's just as difficult for some "law abiding" gun owner to obtain a gun.

This means we settle for gun laws which do very little, if anything, to protect public safety. It's been the history of gun control in this country and will continue to be the policy.

 

[ronburgundy]

OK so registration isn't useful because it can be beaten. Change registration requirements to meet current technology. Require all firearms to have serial numbers identifying the source and owner of the weapon. That might mean a stamp on a gun when it is sold or it might mean including a number that requires submission to authorities when it is printed, then again when it is sold or exchanged. Don't keep stuff out op peoples hands. Just make tracing weapons more reliable and failure to do so more arduous for those who want to avoid detection.
A righteous goal is to keep scofflaws form illegally getting access to and using weapons without detection.

And how do you mandate that the weapon gets a serial number which is registered when it's printed?!?!

- - - Updated - - -

You can prosecute them today for an illegal gun.

If you want to make that easier my proposal for a gunner's license (licensing the operator, not the gun!) would make it much easier to catch the guy. Just like a cop now can arrest anyone they find behind the wheel with no driver's license I'm figuring they should be able to arrest anyone they find with a gun but no license.

ses, but all working guns should be licensed too with a stamped serial number. Anyone with a gun without a stamp, registered and linked to their personal gunner's license is arrested.

In addition, every few years, each gun owner should have to show that they still possess all guns registered to them. Same goes for all gun makers and dealers. They must be accountable for showing that every gun that came into their possession went to a legal owner.

FBI stats show that most black market guns came from legal guns owners selling them illegally into the black market.

I find that hard to believe as in most states there's no requirements for a person-to-person sale.

Sorry, by legal "owner" I was including licensed dealers and wholesalers who are required by law to keep records of every gun sold and to whom. By selling a portion of their inventory without background checks and without keeping records, they are selling illegally into the black market. These illegal sales by legal dealers and wholesalers are responsible for a huge % of crime guns. The next biggest source are "straw sales" where a legal buyer buys it legally, then walks out the door and hands it to someone else (often a person who was with them in the store and picked out the gun right in front of the dealer). Straw buyers looking to resell to criminals at a premium, above-legal-market price also use the gun-show loopholes. They go buy guns for "themselves" at legal market value, then immediately resell them at above that value to people who they know are criminals (or soon to be criminals) by the very fact that they will pay more for the same gun they could get for much cheaper if bought legally from a licensed dealer.

Technically, in most states those resales by owner are not illegal, though the method makes it clear to the buyer that the person cannot legally buy their own gun or intends to use it for criminal purposes, and selling to such a person is in fact illegal. The fact that person-to-person sales require no records should make this beyond believable and quite certain. There is no legal risk to the buyer under current absurd lack of regulations. When the gun turns up in a crime, they just feign ignorance, lie about who they sold it to, their memory for that person, or just falsely claim it was stolen (a lie aided by the lack of laws requiring stolen guns to be reported). IOW, there is massive profit to be made with little risk to legal buyers via reselling to people they know are trying to skirt the laws for nefarious reasons. Thus, even theoretically this would be predicted to be a widespread practice, and there is data to support that.

Also, the FBI and ATF don't need to find the source of every single crime gun, just a sample, to determine relative % of various sources.
Most guns seized in crimes were originally sold within 3-4 years of the crime. Stolen guns would have a much older average age than that, because it would be about the same as the average age of all current legally owned handguns, which is over 11 years. IOW, the crime guns are deliberately put into the illegal market, which is the only way to account for how they wind up going from a "legal" owner or dealer into the hands of a non-legal possessor so quickly. Other sources data indicates that only 10%-15% of crime guns were stolen from a legal owner. IOW, 85%-90% of crime guns were intentionally given/resold by a legal owner or dealer to a someone else. Predictably, inter-state movement of recovered crime guns shows a clear patter in which the guns start from States with lax laws that make such reselling by legally owners and dealers easy and almost undetectable into states with more strict laws.
For example, Colorado actually has a slightly higher % of legal gun owners than nearby Arizona (35% versus 31%). Thus the guns available for stealing are more plentiful in Colorado. Yet, the Colorado imports twice as many guns as it exports that are eventually used in crimes. Whereas in Arizona it is the reverse with 50% more guns exported than imported that wind up used in a crime. This is the exact opposite of what is predicted by a theory assuming that criminals get most of their guns by stealing them. But exactly what is predicted by the theory that the primary source is from legal dealers and owners knowingly selling criminals guns. This theory predicts that the import:export ration of crime guns will not be as strongly tied to number of gun owners from whom criminals can steal, but rather by lax laws that make it easy, low-risk, and thus certain that legal owners and dealers will sell to criminals. Colorado requires background checks for every sale, even at gun shows plus allows inspection of the inventory and record keeping of dealers. Arizona does not do either of these.

BTW, international gun smuggling accounts for few crime guns in the US, because more guns are smuggled out of the US than into the US (millions per year to Mexico, Puerto Rico Latin America, and the Middle East). Legal gun owners and dealers in the US are also responsible for most of those guns too, which are used to commit crimes in other countries. They dealers and owners obtain the guns legally then turn around and profit by deliberately trafficking them to criminals both within and outside the US.

IOW, the deliberate and knowing actions of legal gun owners and legal dealers are what lead to the majority of guns in the hands of criminals.
IT is a lack of sensible gun control laws that allow these people to get away with these actions. The lack of laws allow legal dealers to illegally sell to people they shouldn't without getting caught, and allow "buyers" to make profit off of immediate technically "legal" resell to obvious criminals.
IT is only a small % of legal dealers and owners that do this, but that % does a lot of it and the lack of laws that the NRA and most legal owners fight for are directly responsible for their being able to get away with it.

 

[ronburgundy]

I don't think they are pointless. Rather, I think the only laws that will matter have to be aimed at possession rather than at acquisition.

No. It all about chocking off the supply. The demand for people looking to use a gun illegally will not be much diminished by getting caught with the gun, given that is the lesser of their intended crimes. It is a basic principle of criminal science that criminal acts are highly enabled and increased when supported by legal acts that can be done in the open or actions by others that are technically illegal but unenforceable under current law. As I explain above, legal dealers and legal owners are the primary and knowing suppliers of guns to criminals. Simple and enforceable laws could easily eliminate most such activities by these suppliers by making existing regulations for dealers actually enforceable and making many of the reselling actions of buyers unattractive by either making them illegal, not-profitable, or likely to draw attention and investigation. This could largely eliminate criminal gun possessors ability to rely upon the otherwise legal gun market for cheap and easy access. The entire gun trafficking process into criminal hands would have to be illegal and black market from production through all phases of distribution, and there would be an much more easily identifiable difference to law enforcement between legal and illegal activities in making and distributing and using guns.


Since most crime guns are illegally possessed by criminals only a short time, the odds of catching them with it are low. Their suppliers are mostly non-criminal users of guns whose only crimes would be supplying the guns to criminals. Thus, any increase in criminalization or enforcement against them (up from zero) will drastically reduce the people willing to engage in those gun-supplying activities on which people seeking to use a gun in a criminal way depend.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think they are pointless. Rather, I think the only laws that will matter have to be aimed at possession rather than at acquisition.

/

That is the point, or rather the lack of it. We will not tolerate a law which makes really difficult for a criminal or lunatic to obtain a firearm, if it means it's just as difficult for some "law abiding" gun owner to obtain a gun.

This means we settle for gun laws which do very little, if anything, to protect public safety. It's been the history of gun control in this country and will continue to be the policy.

And what you are missing is that if you can't buy a gun you can make a gun.

 

[Jayjay]

That is the point, or rather the lack of it. We will not tolerate a law which makes really difficult for a criminal or lunatic to obtain a firearm, if it means it's just as difficult for some "law abiding" gun owner to obtain a gun.

This means we settle for gun laws which do very little, if anything, to protect public safety. It's been the history of gun control in this country and will continue to be the policy.

And what you are missing is that if you can't buy a gun you can make a gun.

But not as cheaply, reliably or easily. The point where self-made guns are able to factor in to public safety in any meaningful way is still several decades away.

 

[Bronzeage]

That is the point, or rather the lack of it. We will not tolerate a law which makes really difficult for a criminal or lunatic to obtain a firearm, if it means it's just as difficult for some "law abiding" gun owner to obtain a gun.

This means we settle for gun laws which do very little, if anything, to protect public safety. It's been the history of gun control in this country and will continue to be the policy.

And what you are missing is that if you can't buy a gun you can make a gun.

I can make a gun from a .22 cartridge and a car antenna. Leave me in a hardware store and I can make something the A-team never dreamed of. All of that is a lot of fun, but if I can't buy a gun, it's much easier to steal one. After all, there's no shortage of guns.

 

[bilby]

I don't think they are pointless. Rather, I think the only laws that will matter have to be aimed at possession rather than at acquisition.

No. It all about chocking off the supply. The demand for people looking to use a gun illegally will not be much diminished by getting caught with the gun, given that is the lesser of their intended crimes.

The big problem for the US is that being caught with a gun is not considered a major crime.

Illegal guns are not hard to obtain in the UK. But they are not popular with criminals, because getting caught with one is a serious thing that is likely to lead to a long custodial sentence, regardless of any other offences; or of their absence.

Having an unlicensed gun should be a big deal. When it is, crimes involving guns become a rarity, rather than the norm.

 

[bilby]

That is the point, or rather the lack of it. We will not tolerate a law which makes really difficult for a criminal or lunatic to obtain a firearm, if it means it's just as difficult for some "law abiding" gun owner to obtain a gun.

This means we settle for gun laws which do very little, if anything, to protect public safety. It's been the history of gun control in this country and will continue to be the policy.

And what you are missing is that if you can't buy a gun you can make a gun.

And if being caught with a gun turns a speeding ticket into several months in jail, neither buying nor making a gun is attractive to most criminals.

 

[ronburgundy]

No. It all about chocking off the supply. The demand for people looking to use a gun illegally will not be much diminished by getting caught with the gun, given that is the lesser of their intended crimes.

The big problem for the US is that being caught with a gun is not considered a major crime.

Illegal guns are not hard to obtain in the UK.

They are much harder and 5-10 times more expensive obtain than in the US. Also the ammo costs about 30 cents per round compared to 10-20 times that in the UK.
Sure, if you have the money, and know you to ask, you can get one in the UK. In most US cities, the petty criminals don't need to ask. They are offered guns and have to actively refuse them if they don't want them. They are offered at prices that people have the cash in their pocket. Also, in the UK the gun trade is run by international weapons traffikers, because all the guns come from outside the UK. They are a much scarier group to have to deal with as an 18 year old petty thief, than Billy Bob sitting at a table in a crowded, well lit and fully legal gun show, who has no criminal record because all he does is resell guns to anyone willing to pay above retail (without any paperwork or background check, which is legal).
All that greatly increases whether a petty crook, drug dealer, or just teenager in a rough hood would buy one "just in case".

In addition, there should be major taxes put on bullets, and laws allowing bullet sales only to licensed gun owners at finite amounts with jail time for giving or reselling them to anyone else (in contrast to now, where a credit card allows anyone to get as many thousands of rounds of ammo they want shipped overnight from online sites).

Having an unlicensed gun should be a big deal. When it is, crimes involving guns become a rarity, rather than the norm.

I agree with that. It should automatic jail time, maybe years. But gang bangers are at war with each other. They are defending their lives and already doing things that put them in jail for years. Thus, jail time for carrying won't matter much to them. Choking off supply is the only way to reduce guns among those many people already at more risk than a carrying jail sentence. IT will increase cost 10-fold, greatly increase the effort that a wanna-be thug but really petty their needs to put in to get one, and make it a crime to even buy one without formal paperwork and gov record keeping, which then allows for undercover stings that add another deterrent to trying to obtain one. You and Loren are talking about penalties that only come into play after the criminals already have the guns in their possession, which is often too late, because the odds of happening to catch them with it on them before they use it in a crime are very low. It would help some but fall far short of what is needed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And what you are missing is that if you can't buy a gun you can make a gun.

But not as cheaply, reliably or easily. The point where self-made guns are able to factor in to public safety in any meaningful way is still several decades away.

But it's not beyond what a criminal gun-maker could do now. There's no market for such now because it's easier to steal a gun but if you manage to keep them from stealing a gun you won't stop them from making them.

All you can realistically do is keep guns out of the hands of the crazies. This would be of some help but the number who are killed by crazies is low--and has to be compared with the number that would die because they couldn't defend themselves from an attacker.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. It all about chocking off the supply. The demand for people looking to use a gun illegally will not be much diminished by getting caught with the gun, given that is the lesser of their intended crimes.

The big problem for the US is that being caught with a gun is not considered a major crime.

Illegal guns are not hard to obtain in the UK. But they are not popular with criminals, because getting caught with one is a serious thing that is likely to lead to a long custodial sentence, regardless of any other offences; or of their absence.

Having an unlicensed gun should be a big deal. When it is, crimes involving guns become a rarity, rather than the norm.

Which is why I've advocated for gun owner licensing--it makes it very easy for a cop to figure out if that gun you are carrying is legal or not.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I don't think they are pointless. Rather, I think the only laws that will matter have to be aimed at possession rather than at acquisition.

I agree. We should just get over ourselves and ban all types of guns except for hunting rifles and shotguns and require strict licensing and accident insurance for anyone who wants to own one of those. Handguns and assault weapons should be banned altogether.

Because you fixated on the 100 rounds you missed the article.

No I didn't. I'm pointing out that you are misremembering two different articles as being related to each other when, in fact, they are not.

The lower receiver that was used to fire 100 rounds was made by someone with an aerospace background and an industrial grade CNC machine; he is an experienced engineer and a gun enthusiast (though hardly a "Gunsmith" as you claimed).

The lower receiver made by the Ghost Gun machine doesn't appear to be in use by anyone except tech journalists and gun rights fanboys. It's not entirely certain whether this is a practical device yet or just a novelty that is better at making a point than it is about weapons. Considering that most of the information about the Ghost Gun's performance actually comes from youtube videos (which are totally legit 100% of the time) should tell you something.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But not as cheaply, reliably or easily. The point where self-made guns are able to factor in to public safety in any meaningful way is still several decades away.

But it's not beyond what a criminal gun-maker could do now. There's no market for such now because it's easier to steal a gun but if you manage to keep them from stealing a gun you won't stop them from making them.

So what? The kinds of people who have the resources to manufacture illegal guns generally wouldn't waste those resources on manufacturing illegal guns. There are simply easier, less dangerous and far more profitable things to do with that equipment that are a lot less likely to result in a long and harsh Federal prison sentence.

You have a very strange conception of who "criminals" in America actually are. Petty criminals won't bother manufacturing their own guns; if they can't get them, they'll switch to knives, bricks or (famously demonstrated in the case of Hong Kong street gangs) nunchucks. Repeat offenders whose idea of a "big payday" is to rob a convenience store aren't going to make that leap of logic either; that sort of creativity would preclude them being criminals in the first place.

Terrorists, militias and Oath Keeper/Anarchists are going to LOVE this technology if and when it finally reaches maturity. Beyond that, though, this isn't a technology for criminals, this is a technology for INSURGENTS.

All you can realistically do is keep guns out of the hands of the crazies.

And also petty criminals, pissed off teenagers, unattended minors, drunken wives/husbands, and vigilantes with poor judgement.

Crazy people buy guns LEGALLY, because being crazy isn't against the law. Better to keep guns out of the hands of EVERYONE until they can demonstrate a legitimate need to own one (e.g. sportsmen and farmers who have to repel predators).

the number who are killed by crazies is low--and has to be compared with the number that would die because they couldn't defend themselves from an attacker.

Strictly speaking, the only valid defense against a crazy person with a gun is "run like hell." If you are not trained as a professional gunman with the expertise and experience needed to handle yourself in a live fire situation, the only proper action in that situation is to get the fuck OUT.

You catch yourself posing in front of a mirror with your handgun you just bought and think "Fuck yeah, I'm a badass now, nobody's ever gonna threaten me again!" Guess what? You're part of them problem now, not part of the solution.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree. We should just get over ourselves and ban all types of guns except for hunting rifles and shotguns and require strict licensing and accident insurance for anyone who wants to own one of those. Handguns and assault weapons should be banned altogether.

Because you fixated on the 100 rounds you missed the article.

No I didn't. I'm pointing out that you are misremembering two different articles as being related to each other when, in fact, they are not.

The lower receiver that was used to fire 100 rounds was made by someone with an aerospace background and an industrial grade CNC machine; he is an experienced engineer and a gun enthusiast (though hardly a "Gunsmith" as you claimed).

The lower receiver made by the Ghost Gun machine doesn't appear to be in use by anyone except tech journalists and gun rights fanboys. It's not entirely certain whether this is a practical device yet or just a novelty that is better at making a point than it is about weapons. Considering that most of the information about the Ghost Gun's performance actually comes from youtube videos (which are totally legit 100% of the time) should tell you something.

I linked the article you still seem to think doesn't exist.

It was a non-tech reporter that made the lower receiver with the machine. A guy who failed miserably at trying to mill it manually. (He tried manual milling, 3D printing and CNC-milled. Only the last one produced a workable part.)

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I linked the article you still seem to think doesn't exist.

But you didn't carefully READ it, which is half the problem.

In his case, the gun jammed after about 15 rounds and had to be serviced by an award-winning marksman before it could be used again, a detail you chose to leave out. You also left out the part where he wasn't able to assemble it correctly in the first place without the aid of an experienced gunsmith. And in ALL cases, you seem ambivalent to the fact that Ghost Gun only manufactures lower receivers, which is indeed a critical component, but is about ten percent of what you would actually need to assemble a working AR-15.

You talk about this machine as if it's being used to manufacture fully functional weapons out of a handful of easily obtainable raw materials. It's not. It's being used to assemble a SINGLE component that is otherwise tightly regulated in the United States. And even Greenberg observes that the only reason this is even possible to do is because UPPER receivers are, inexplicably, not regulated at all. That already presents a relatively simple solution to the "Ghost Gun" fad.

It was a non-tech reporter that made the lower receiver with the machine.

Really? Wired Magazine hires non-tech reporters?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But you didn't carefully READ it, which is half the problem.

In his case, the gun jammed after about 15 rounds and had to be serviced by an award-winning marksman before it could be used again, a detail you chose to leave out. You also left out the part where he wasn't able to assemble it correctly in the first place without the aid of an experienced gunsmith. And in ALL cases, you seem ambivalent to the fact that Ghost Gun only manufactures lower receivers, which is indeed a critical component, but is about ten percent of what you would actually need to assemble a working AR-15.

And you omitted the fact that this had nothing to do with the receiver he had manufactured.

You are showing issues pertaining to building a gun by a total novice, not issues pertaining to the homemade part.