Yes that link does work, thank you.
I read through as best as I can in my current location. I don’t see breakdowns of what percentages of crimes involving a gun are done with “ghost guns”. I did see that “ghost guns” have shown up in crimes in 38 states. How many total relative to all gun crimes in those states though?
As for the mass shooting example in the article, the majority of mass shooters passed background checks:
https://apnews.com/article/6fa458941f684468a24a992285777d05
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html
In the mass shooting example in the article the shooter was a minor who had taken the firearm from his father. Now the father was prohibited from owning firearms, so certainly there’s an argument that had “ghost guns” been illegal the shooting wouldn’t have happened. To me the bigger story is a minor who took a firearm from a parent and used it to commit a mass shooting, as has tragically been the case in a number of shootings. To me this says more about the need to secure firearms than “ghost guns” in particular.
Later in the article are interviews about why people are purchasing these. The gun shop owner says they’re hobbyists, the LA Sheriff says that’s hogwash. Is that proof either way?
I can’t and don’t deny “ghost guns” have and will be used by criminals, just as firearms in general are. Again my question is the scale of the problem, which doesn’t seem well documented.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I read through as best as I can in my current location. I don’t see breakdowns of what percentages of crimes involving a gun are done with “ghost guns”. I did see that “ghost guns” have shown up in crimes in 38 states. How many total relative to all gun crimes in those states though?
As for the mass shooting example in the article, the majority of mass shooters passed background checks:
https://apnews.com/article/6fa458941f684468a24a992285777d05
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html
In the mass shooting example in the article the shooter was a minor who had taken the firearm from his father. Now the father was prohibited from owning firearms, so certainly there’s an argument that had “ghost guns” been illegal the shooting wouldn’t have happened. To me the bigger story is a minor who took a firearm from a parent and used it to commit a mass shooting, as has tragically been the case in a number of shootings. To me this says more about the need to secure firearms than “ghost guns” in particular.
Later in the article are interviews about why people are purchasing these. The gun shop owner says they’re hobbyists, the LA Sheriff says that’s hogwash. Is that proof either way?
I can’t and don’t deny “ghost guns” have and will be used by criminals, just as firearms in general are. Again my question is the scale of the problem, which doesn’t seem well documented.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited: