What Are Ghost Guns and Why Are They So Dangerous?

[turbinetree]

By: Patrick J. Kiger | Updated: Apr 7, 2021

On a late afternoon in August 2019, California Highway Patrol officer Andre Moye, Jr., 34, pulled over a pickup truck on a freeway for driving illegally in a carpool lane. The driver, a 49-year-old felon named Aaron Luther, had an expired license and no registration. Moye decided to impound the vehicle and was filling out the paperwork when Luther grabbed a military-style semi-automatic rifle from his truck and began firing at him.

Officer Moye was fatally wounded, and when other CHP officers arrived on the scene, Luther fired at least 100 more rounds at them before he was shot by police and killed, according to an account in the Riverside Press-Enterprise.

Luther, who had served 10 years in prison for attempted second-degree murder and other offenses, could not have purchased a firearm legally. But that restriction didn't stop him from obtaining one.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/ghost-guns.htm

[Hoyt]

1. Dangerous because either criminals and/or Klansmen types are into them.

[getagrip_already]

2. It's a media term, the only difference is that there is no serial number....

You can buy kits for these with everything you need but the ammo. Just google 80% guns.

They are inoperable as delivered, and technically don't qualify as firearms under federal law. You can order them over the intertubes.

It just takes a few tools that most hobbyists would probably have anyway to convert them to firing weapons'.

There really isn't any difference once completed except they won't have a S/N.

A variation on this is when you 3D print the lower receiver, which is the part that makes a gun a firearm that needs to have a s/n if sold. All other parts can be bought without a permit.

Some states are trying to pass laws to restrict 80% gun sales, but I don't think any have (could be wrong).

[stopdiggin]

4. thanks for that summary

(Because the story in the OP did nothing to elucidate)
Neither more (nor less) dangerous than any other type of firearm - it's the accessibility, and the accessibility to the wrong people, that is the issue.

[AndyS]

3. Anybody can buy one.

“A 13-year-old kid, doesn’t weigh but about 80 pounds, was able to make a weapon from start to finish. At 13 years old.”
— Tim Pounds, sheriff of Douglas County, Georgia, after a 13-year-old boy fatally shot his 14-year-old sister with a ghost gun assembled with parts he bought online, in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

ANYBODY

[Dial H For Hero]

5. To be more precise, anyone can purchase the tools and parts necessary to make a firearm.

This has always been the case. What has changed is the level of skill necessary to produce such a firearm. Recent advances in technologies such as 3-D printers and computer controlled CNC machines have
made it far easier than in the past.

Given that such technology will only become more advanced and accessible in the future, I seen no practical way of preventing anyone who wishes to make a firearm from doing so. It will be cheaper and easier with every passing year.

[AndyS]

6. A distinction without a difference.

It sounds as if you believe this is a good or at least a benign thing.

[USALiberal]

7. I agree, sounds like he is fine with it. Nt

[Dial H For Hero]

8. I expressed neither approval nor disapproval. I simply described the situation as I see it.

Was anything I said inaccurate?

[AndyS]

9. Struck me as approving. Apparently I'm not the only one.

It's surprising to me that people who are so concerned about criminals having guns are so blasé about making it so easy for criminals to have them.

I would think that any "law abiding citizen" or "responsible gun owner" would want to make it difficult to feed the illegal gun trade instead of just accepting a flood of illegal and untraceable firearms into the hands of prohibited people.

In other words I would think that such a person would be disapproving of such guns and the totally unfettered and unregulated access to then. What with being all law abiding and responsible.

[Dial H For Hero]

11. I can't control how things strike you or anyone else. Please point out which part of my post

expressed approval. I simply pointed out that with modern technology, preventing people from making them is almost impossible, and will only become more so with time.

Do you disagree?

[AndyS]

17. To not express disapproval is tacit approval. There is no neutral ground.

To do otherwise is akin to "I don't own slaves but it's almost impossible to stop others from . . ."

What you say about technology is true ONLY if we allow it.

Law can prohibit the manufacturing and sale of such products. Law can prohibit the manufacture of a home made firearm. I would expect a law abiding citizens who are concerned with criminals having guns to support and propose such laws instead of simply accepting the status quo with an "Oh well . . ." attitude.

No law will eradicate any behavior but I don't suppose you advocate repealing laws against theft or murder. Even though not everyone obeys them without traffic laws the commute to work would be a great more exciting don't you agree.

Laws change behavior two ways; people naturally obey them to maintain an orderly society and people fear the repercussion of not obeying them. In either case laws are effective else why have them at all.

I just thought that as a law abiding citizen who fears criminals enough to own a gun to be safe from them you might disapprove of allowing free and unregulated access of guns to criminals.

Do you disagree?

[Dial H For Hero]

19. Nonsense. As is comparing the manufacturing of a firearm for one's personal use to slavery.

The Wikipedia article I quoted doesn't condemn the manufacturing of 3D guns. Is that tacit approval of them?

Laws can indeed prohibit the manufacture of homemade firearms. Such laws would result in those who make them for lawful purposes (99%+) unlikely to do so....and instead, they would simply purchase firearms made by commercial manufacturers in their stead, as they would have ten or more years ago. So they'll be just as well-armed as if such laws hadn't been passed.

Criminals, in the meantime, will ignore such laws and simply print 3D guns, as they do now.

Positive impact of such a law: Zero. Granted, it could result in an additional penalty added on to a criminal when they are tried, but one could simply increase the penalties for violent crimes instead with the same result. I don't have the slightest problem with that.

What you say about technology is true ONLY if we allow it.

Incorrect. I presume you're not advocating restrictions on the ownership of 3D printers (correct me if I'm wrong), and given the practical impossibility of keeping people from designing and distributing the files which one can use to make such weapons, it's happening regardless of whether you "allow" it or not.

As for making it illegal to sell homemade guns, I'm not sure why you're bringing it up....given that it's already a federal crime to do so.

I just thought that as a law abiding citizen who fears criminals enough to own a gun to be safe from them you might disapprove of allowing free and unregulated access of guns to criminals.

Do you disagree?

In this particular case, given that a such a law will not impede those with the intent to harm others unjustifiably from making such firearms to any significant degree, yes I do.

[AndyS]

20. The comparison of doing nothing about guns is absolutely valid.

The Wikipedia article I quoted doesn't condemn the manufacturing of 3D guns. Is that tacit approval of them?
Wiki isn't a discussion board. I trust you know the difference in both format and in purpose.

Laws can indeed prohibit the manufacture of homemade firearms. Such laws would result in those who make them for lawful purposes (99%+) unlikely to do so....and instead, they would simply purchase firearms made by commercial manufacturers in their stead, as they would have ten or more years ago. So they'll be just as well-armed as if such laws hadn't been passed.
Oft repeated meme and among the lamest of justifications. Follow this to it's conclusion and we should have no laws at all because someone will break them. You claim 99% of home made guns are for 'legal purposes' [I think it's closer to 45% but we don't know--no records kept because guns are so damn special]. Why is that? Because most people obey the law because it is the structure of civilized society, others because of fear of punishment. Laws will most certainly decrease the number of guns killing and hurting people.

Criminals, in the meantime, will ignore such laws and simply print 3D guns, as they do now.
See above.

Positive impact of such a law: Zero. Granted, it could result in an additional penalty added on to a criminal when they are tried, but one could simply increase the penalties for violent crimes instead with the same result. I don't have the slightest problem with that.
You have no evidence that there would be no impact of such laws and there is abundant evidence that any law has a positive effect. Repeat it all you wish it is still a fallacious comment.

What you say about technology is true ONLY if we allow it.

Incorrect. I presume you're not advocating restrictions on the ownership of 3D printers (correct me if I'm wrong), and given the practical impossibility of keeping people from designing and distributing the files which one can use to make such weapons, it's happening regardless of whether you "allow" it or not.
The argument you make is a simple restatement of the fallacy that laws have no effect on behavior. That is the ONLY argument you have presented. I do not advocate outlawing 3D printers, only printing gun parts (or distributing files to do so). Like it's illegal to distribute child porn.

As for making it illegal to sell homemade guns, I'm not sure why you're bringing it up....given that it's already a federal crime to do so.
Re-read the post. Make the manufacture and sale of 80% kits illegal, make the manufacture of home made guns illegal. I said nothing about selling home made guns. You're reaching here.

I just thought that as a law abiding citizen who fears criminals enough to own a gun to be safe from them you might disapprove of allowing free and unregulated access of guns to criminals.

Do you disagree?

In this particular case, given that a such a law will not impede those with the intent to harm others unjustifiably from making such firearms to any significant degree, yes I do.
Again, the same zombie talking point. I won't even dignify it as an argument because it's not. It's a zombie because no matter how many times it's shown be be fallacious it's repeated. You need some fresh material, Hero. Still, it's good for you to say out loud that you disagree with any measure to reduce the unfettered and unregulated flow of guns into the illegal market.

[Amishman]

18. I got the same impression, but he is right

I wish I could say he is wrong, but he's not. The viability of mitigating gun violence by restricting supply / acquisition of the guns themselves is quickly slipping away. And he is right that technology is only going to make this worse over time.

Its a grim reality, one that we need to accept. Why? So we can try to get ahead of it and prevent truly unrestricted gun availability from taking more lives than it would otherwise.

I wish I had a possible alternative solution, but I don't. The only thing that comes to mind is background checks and restrictions on ammunition sales, but some people manufacture their own at home there too. At least with that (judging my by gun nut brother-in-law's setup) it requires a lot more knowledge and equipment.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. I wonder how they'll deal with that in countries that have actual firearm restrictions.

[Dial H For Hero]

13. Ineffectively. Here's a recent photo of a People's Defense Forces fighter in Myanmar.

8 years ago, 3D printed guns could fire a single shot before rendered useless. This guy's holding an FGC-9 semiautomatic carbine. Per Wikipedia:

The FGC-9 is a physible, 3D-printable semiautomatic pistol caliber carbine, first released in early 2020. Using the Shuty AP-9 by Derwood as the basis, the FGC-9 was designed and first manufactured by a pseudonymous Kurdish gun designer named JStark1809. The designer created the pistol with the self-imposed constraint that its creation would not require a single potentially regulated (according to E.U. laws) firearm part in order to enable people in countries with restrictive gun control to manufacture it. The weapon is a mix of fabricated 3D printed parts, easily manufactured metal pressure-bearing parts, and readily available springs, screws, nuts, and bolts. The total cost of production, assuming the user already owns a 3D printer, is less than USD$400. The FGC-9 is noted for its deep and thorough documentation, included in the release, which make construction and assembly fairly simple for anyone. The documentation has been translated into several other languages since it was first published.

The files for the firearm's manufacture are widely available across the internet, and as of October 2020, it has not run into specific legal issues, unlike Defense Distributed's Liberator Pistol.

As of December 2020, the MkII revision has been available for download. In addition to revising the building process to make it simpler and including materials for home production of steel barrels, the MkII design includes additional accessory attachment points, an integrated sling loop, and a new bolt designed to be both more reliable and easier to construct.

(end excerpt)

The genie is out of the bottle.

[Crunchy Frog]

14. I was thinking less places like Myanmar and more like Europe.

Do you think they will change laws, if necessary, to accommodate new situations?

I agree with the other poster that you seem pleased by this.

[Dial H For Hero]

16. Well, as the Wikipedia article points out the FGC-9 was designed so as not to require a single

regulated part in the EU.

Do you think they will change laws, if necessary, to accommodate new situations?

Possibly, although I believe such laws will be ineffective, given the ubiquity of 3D printers.

I agree with the other poster that you seem pleased by this.

How so? What have I said that expresses pleasure regarding 3D printed firearms?

[jmowreader]

12. CNC machines aren't even necessary to build ghost guns

The 80-percent lower receiver dealers ALSO sell router jigs. With a router - a woodworking tool available in any decent pawn shop for about $50 - and a set of these jigs, you can build ghost guns in the comfort of your own home.

[Dial H For Hero]

15. Fair point. I was just thinking of the Ghost Gunner CNC machine, which allows one to turn an 80%

lower receiver into a functional one with (essentially) the push of a button in just 35 minutes. They are pricey, though ($2100).