Talk:Privately made firearm/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 &#124; 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
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)