| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Privately made firearm article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
A number of sources describe ghost guns as "weapons". @ Miguel Escopeta: just changed all instances of "weapons" in the article to "firearms", labelling the edit a "reduction of inflammatory wording". [1] I don't see anything inflammatory about calling a gun a "weapon". Unless there's a good reason for this change I'll put back the original term. Felsic2 ( talk) 20:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- The reason is that "Weapon" is dog whistle speak for "evil boomstick". It is widely deprecated. All NRA Certified Instructor classes are taught with a fine of $1 per each time anyone in the class, instructor or student, uses the word "weapon", for example. The reason is that "Weapon" is what anti-gun rights personnel attempt to brush across everything firearm related. It is perceived to be evil in the public's eye. On the other hand, the terms "firearm", "rifle", "pistol", "drilling", and "shotgun", are all fine. Neither positive or negative in denotation or connotation. The word "Weapon" is forbidden, because it carries an "evil boomstick" connotation, and is only used by those opposed to gun rights in favor of gun control. "Weapon" is only used in military usages, not in civilian usages. There is a good reason to avoid the use of the word weapon in this article. Unless, the reason is attempt to push a Gun Control agenda. Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 20:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ghost guns are not military firearms. Military firearms are weapons. Civilian firearms, which include ghost guns, are firearms, not weapons. OSS firearms, e.g, the .45 ACP Liberator
FP-45 Liberator, is a ghost gun firearm, too, and not a weapon. It had no serial numbers of manufacturer's name on it, either. On the other hand, if the intent is to tar commonly owned civilian household firearms with an evil characteristic, then "weapon" is the preferred biased word of choice used by anti-gun rights writers. Avoiding bias is supposed to be the rule on Wikipedia. But, if biased language is your preference, then it would appear your POV is showing.
Miguel Escopeta (
talk) 20:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've never heard of this distinction between military and civilian firearms. I don't know why the OSS guns would not be weapons. (If anyone actually calls them "ghost guns" then we could include them in the article.) Again, do you have any objective sources which describe this POV issue? Personally, I don't see how "weapon" is a biased term for a firearm. It is used in many of the sources, which are mostly mainstream media. The burden is on you to justify the change. Felsic2 ( talk) 21:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ghost guns are not military firearms. Military firearms are weapons. Civilian firearms, which include ghost guns, are firearms, not weapons. OSS firearms, e.g, the .45 ACP Liberator
FP-45 Liberator, is a ghost gun firearm, too, and not a weapon. It had no serial numbers of manufacturer's name on it, either. On the other hand, if the intent is to tar commonly owned civilian household firearms with an evil characteristic, then "weapon" is the preferred biased word of choice used by anti-gun rights writers. Avoiding bias is supposed to be the rule on Wikipedia. But, if biased language is your preference, then it would appear your POV is showing.
Miguel Escopeta (
talk) 20:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Weapon and firearm are not synonyms. There are many weapons which are not firearms. There are firearms which are not weapons.The entire concept of ghost guns is a legal issue, dealing with FFLs, serialization etc. These are concepts deeply rooted in the legal definition of "firearm", and regulations of firearms. Bringing "weapon" in is a distraction - although I freely agree that a great proportion of ghost guns are ultimately "weapons" many are not. pre-ghost guns (80% lowers for example) are both not a firearm, and not functional. They are definitely not weapons, unless you intend on throwing it at someone. Go from 80% to 100%, and you just became a firearm - even if you are still not functional. There are many many ghost gun "firearms" which cannot actually be fired, because they have not had triggers, barrels, or other parts installed. They are not "weapons" in any meaningful sense. But they are definitely firearms. Add in the additional parts to make the gun actually fire, and it may or may not be a weapon (is a hunting rifle a weapon? an Olympic target rifle?) - This article is discussing "ghost guns" at all stages of existence, and should strive to not be ambiguous or confusing as to what it means. ResultingConstant ( talk) 21:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW, I agree with Felsic that I don't understand why OSS guns would not be a weapon. It was intended for armed resistance during a war. That seems to be the very core of "weapon-ness". If it is a ghost gun or not is a harder question - "ghost gun" as a term seems to mean recently created guns, manufactured in the US, which are in the US, which are not subject to certain firearm regulations by virtue of being made by the owner. There are many other guns which also don't follow those laws, but they don't seem to be generally referred to as "ghost guns" - antiques (or any gun made prior to the regulations), guns which are made overseas (eg, the vast majority of AK47s in the world do not have serial numbers, but I don't think anyone is calling them Ghost Guns) ResultingConstant ( talk) 21:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- The common definition of "firearm" is that it's a weapon:
a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms [2]
a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder. [3]
A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant. [4]
- I'd certainly say that any object designed and buil for the purpose of harming a living thing would qualify as a weapon. There are a few exceptions, like flare guns, but those are obvious. Target guns are borderline, but no one is talking about building ghost guns for the purposes of competitive sport shooting. The objection to referring to guns as "weapons" seems like political correctness taken to an extreme. Felsic2 ( talk) 21:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Your argument carries some water. I think some of ME's changes we probably overly strong, but not all of them. For example, I think the very first one "a firearm without serial numbers" is absolutely correct, because we are dealing with regulations, and those regulations are particularly about firearms. On the other hand "illicit weapons trade" seems more natural. as well as "Tracing ghost guns used in crimes is much harder than tracing serialized weapons" due to the context. Others are more borderline. "Some ghost guns are AR-15 style weapons/firearms" I could see argued both ways. ResultingConstant ( talk) 22:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- but, you are quoting the dictionary definition of firearm. ghost guns are specifically used in the context of the legal definition of firearm. The dictionary definition and the legal definition are not the same. also, you missed the a good deal of my argument, which is very relevant to the content already in the article, and cuts against your argument. : "The same vendor predicted he would sold 75,000 unfinished receivers in 2014. The ATF raided his store that year and confiscated 6,000 receiver blanks which they said were too close to finished units" The ATF determined that the unfinished receivers were firearms. But they weren't weapons. Nobody could fire them. They were things that could be turned into weapons with little effort though. Even a fully manufactured ar15 lower isn't a weapon until it gets a trigger and a barrel. But it is a firearm.
ResultingConstant (
talk) 22:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think most reasonable people would look at a lower receiver and identify it as a firearm. That's a legal definition for the purposes of regulation. Note that I never called those receivers "weapons" anyway. I'm willing to compromise. It was the sweeping change that seemed so inappropriate. Could you be the neutral arbiter and make the changes as you think best?
Felsic2 (
talk) 22:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- You think people look at lower receivers and would call it a weapon? Most people (eg, not gun people, and not gun control people) would probalby have no idea what it was at all. I agree absolutely that "thats a legal definition for the purposes of regulation". thats my whole point. "Ghost guns" is a term used exclusively in the context of discussing regulations, (purported) avoidance of those regulations, and proposed changes to those regulations. The regulatory definition is the important one. Yes, I will make some changes to see if we can compromise. Also, I think "gun" can be used as a more compromise term as not carrying either side's baggage, and being the most common term.
ResultingConstant (
talk) 22:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- You lost my on how an OSS Liberator is not a weapon. It's a textbook definition of one. We certainly did not make them to sit on a mantle and be admired, they were used to help France rid the country of Germans.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- You think people look at lower receivers and would call it a weapon? Most people (eg, not gun people, and not gun control people) would probalby have no idea what it was at all. I agree absolutely that "thats a legal definition for the purposes of regulation". thats my whole point. "Ghost guns" is a term used exclusively in the context of discussing regulations, (purported) avoidance of those regulations, and proposed changes to those regulations. The regulatory definition is the important one. Yes, I will make some changes to see if we can compromise. Also, I think "gun" can be used as a more compromise term as not carrying either side's baggage, and being the most common term.
ResultingConstant (
talk) 22:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think most reasonable people would look at a lower receiver and identify it as a firearm. That's a legal definition for the purposes of regulation. Note that I never called those receivers "weapons" anyway. I'm willing to compromise. It was the sweeping change that seemed so inappropriate. Could you be the neutral arbiter and make the changes as you think best?
Felsic2 (
talk) 22:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I stand corrected on one point. The Philippines reference does tweak my informal definition to remove the "made in the US" part. If that same gun had stayed in the Philippines, would it still be a ghost gun though? ResultingConstant ( talk) 23:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've gotta run so I can't look it up again, but I just saw an article about the Philippine gun industry, which includes many small workshops. One of the issues there is the number of guns produced without serial numbers, which authorities hope to reduce. I didn't use the article as a source because it didn't use the term "ghost guns" to describe them.
Felsic2 (
talk) 23:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, this is more evidence that the term is specifically in reference to US regulations then no? Should we perhaps indicate that in the lede? "The term is (primarily) used (in the united states) by" ? ResultingConstant ( talk) 23:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- The NFA (National Firearms Act) uses the term "weapon" to describe a class of items that include legally determined firearms and "other" items not legally determined to be firearms but which nevertheless concern the firearms jurisdiction of the ATF (implicitly excluding alcohol or tobacco). This includes specifically receiver blanks and the determination on a per-case basis of whether an item is a firearm or other weapon that must be regulated (registered or otherwise kept strictly under chain of custody regulations for federal firearms licensees). If anything is to be considered an inflammatory term, "Ghost Gun" would have to be "it", since it has no meaning under the law, and attaches transcendental status to the object in question, which in any case would be deemed a FIREARM by the ATF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.123.214.5 ( talk) 15:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
These issues have been resolved. JoeBo82 ( talk) 04:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Mike Searson: Re: [5]. The source I was relying upon says:
The firearm industry calls them "ghost guns," which means they're made using different parts, don't have serial numbers, and don't require background checks. [6]
I have no idea what every member of the industry says. I'm just going by what the sources say. Is there another term for the same items that's preferred in industry circles? Felsic2 ( talk) 23:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I hear you, those news people really have their finger on the pulse of the industry( that was heavy sarcasm, by the way). No wonder people are so misinformed.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is a tough nut. Presumably at least some industry people do (Defense Distributed). Trying to split hairs on who is "legitimate industry" is going to become a No true Scotsman issue. I think saying "some of the firearms industry" is perfectly defend-able though. ResultingConstant ( talk) 23:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
These issues have been resolved. JoeBo82 ( talk) 04:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I added the globalize template as this article seems to overwhelmingly present a United States centric view. CT55555( talk) 03:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)