Talk:Homemade firearm

Page name- "Ghost gun" or "Privately made firearm"

There's a Wikipedia policy about naming articles. Wikipedia:Article titles. Part of it is at WP:COMMONNAME. It says that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)..." The vast majority of sources use the term "ghost gun" to refer to unserialized guns. Only the official U.S. Government sources use "Privately made firearm". And even they agree that the common term is "ghost gun". Look at https://www.atf.gov/firearms/privately-made-firearms. It says "PMFs are commonly referred to as “ghost guns” ". The common name is "ghost gun", and that should be the title of the article. WestRiding24 (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Homemade firearm. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 11:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Privately made firearm → Ghost gun – WP:COMMONNAME, see above. WestRiding24 (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning support, or move to Homemade firearm or Homemade gun: Things made by private companies are privately made things. Most firearms are privately made, but those are not what the article is about. The current title is therefore confusing. The current opening sentence also violates WP:ISATERMFOR. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Homemade gun is a redirect to Improvised firearm - would using that title mean the topics would be merged?
  • As for "Homemade firearm", I don't see that term being used widely at all.
  • A 3D printed firearm isn't quite the same as a homemade gun, because some companies are making and selling them. Also, the 80% receivers and other kits may not include 3D printed parts.
  • The main point of changing the name (back) to "ghost gun" is that it's the common name. "Privately made firearm" is used only by the ATF, who admits that "ghost gun" is the common name.[1] The vast majority of sources use the term "ghost gun". WestRiding24 (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    • If we don't want to use the informal and allegedly biased term "ghost gun", I think "Homemade firearm" captures the meaning well as a WP:NDESC neutral descriptive title. These are firearms made by someone who does not manufacture them professionally for sale (since that would land someone in a regulated classification: "anyone intending to manufacture firearms for sale or distribution is required to obtain a Federal Firearms License"). I think "homemade" does not imply improvised design – it merely implies using methods and materials that are feasible for the general public at an affordable cost. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly support the change to ghost gun. This is the term in popular culture and the original title of the article. —⁠ ⁠Kamenev (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting, per request on my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Opposition Strong opposition and support move to Homemade Firearm' to the proposed change. In addition to that fact that this seems to be a proposed move just to prove a point, with edit history commentary suggesting as much (→Page name- "Ghost gun" or "Privately made firearm": make it official), I present the following, also available on the then-closer's talk page, as to why I strong disagree with this suggestion:

1. It is not the lack of serial numbers, being 'untraceable ghost' as it would, that makes this manner of firearm distinguishable, but the fact it is made by the private individual. Something better described by "Privately made firearm". From a historical standpoint, an issue that arises from this is that, at least in the United States (which appears to be so heavily emphasized in this article that it has lead to a globalize template being placed), a lack of serial numbers was a common occurrence for much of U.S. history. For instance, U.S. Army weapons made at the Springfield Armory did not have serial numbers until 1865 (even though production began 70 years earlier). Likewise, when the Federal Government did begin considering serial number requirements in earnest, such as with a 1958 regulatory proposal by the IRS, they faced heavy opposition and were ultimately watered down. Even the later 1963 Assassination of John F. Kennedy did little to save early predecessors to what would eventually become the Gun Control Act of 1968 from criticism, of which much was focused on serial number requirements. And, I can find no major news outlets suggesting that such pre-1968 production model firearms are "ghost guns", so the emphasis on serialization imported by the 'ghost' framing is imprecise.
2. Even when lack of serialization is mentioned, use of the term "Ghost gun" almost always emphasizes that these firearms are homemade, again lending credence that "Privately made firearm" is a more natural title. As an example, in a report by Everytown for Gun Safety on "ghost guns", the authors, lay out their basic definition for the term: "A ghost gun is a DIY, homemade gun made from readily available, unregulated building blocks." However, in stating a defaced firearm is not a ghost gun,the authors make it very clear that the self-assembled nature of these firearms is the main factor, not the lack of serial numbers: "No. Defaced guns are sometimes referred to as ghost guns, but defaced guns are different. A defaced gun is a commercially manufactured firearm that has had its serial number obliterated.". Again, something naturally described in the title "Privately made firearm".
3. Another issue is that the term "Ghost gun' simply isn't a long-standing common name for these firearms, contrary to what WestRiding24 would like others to believe. The very term "Ghost Gun" wasn't even coined until 2012, and the first scholarly mention I can even find is from 2014. Reporting by outlets explicitly in favor of gun control, such as The Trace, admit as much: "'Ghost gun' is a relatively new term." It should then come as no surprise for me to state that I couldn't seem to find much as for any earlier mention of the term being used the sense given, not at least in Google Scholar, ResearchGate, PubMed, or any other large database.
4. What I did find however, is that the term "Homemade firearm" predates "Ghost gun" and is used specifically in multiple scholarly publications, such as this one, that one, that other one, and yet another one, all from more than 25 years ago. Consequently, the following comment made by WestRiding24 can be disposed of as simply false: "As for 'Homemade firearm', I don't see that term being used widely at all.".
5. With respect to the prior move from "Ghost gun" to "Privately made firearm", as opposed to seeing it as a shift from a supposedly 'common name' as argued by the two supporting editors in the recent since-reopened move request, as far as talk page discourse goes, the change was welcomed and considered as correcting the inherent bias in the prior title. To quote Fuzheado on April 22, 2022, "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". Similarly, the term "ghost gun" was not considered a common name, but rather as biased, as evidenced in earlier discourse like that by Asmoaesl, on September 18, 2021, "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.".

• • In conclusion, the title "Ghost gun" is neither recognizable (other than as being biased), nor natural (having being contrived recently back in 2012), nor precise (not obvious that it doesn't include old firearms or those which have been defaced), nor concise or consistent, nor a common name. In contrast, the title "Privately made firearm" is plainly recognizable (as referencing a firearm which is privately made), it flows naturally (a firearm which is privately made obviously is called a 'privately made firearm'), it is precise (making clear an emphasis on self-assembly), concisely does in no less words than needed, and can be consistently used without need for clarification. Even "Homemade firearm" would work better than the amorphous framing of "Ghost gun". Irruptive Creditor (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• • • There was no discussion before the name was changed to ″privately made firearm″, which is an uncommon term.
    • As discussed above, Homemade gun is a redirect to Improvised firearm, a different article on a different topic.
    • The sources for this article almost all use the term "ghost gun". It is the common name. That is the Wikipedia standard, not oldest name or original name, or anything else. WestRiding24 (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

      Beyond not refuting anything I have written, or providing any sources for your claims, there are even more issues in your commentary

      1. First, you have made no argument other than repeat a single circularly reasoned claim: "Ghost gun is the common name. Why? It is commonly used. Why? Ghost gun is the common name (repeat ad infinitum)". This is less an argument and more or less just inference piled upon inference after inference. In addition, if we look at usage of 'homemade gun' compared to 'ghost gun' over time, we find that ghost gun is not the common name. Period. Also since you made some shallow and pedantic nit-picking about "homemade gun" linking to improvised firearm, I have corrected that and re-directed "Homemade gun" to "Privately made firearm" as "Homemade firearm" already redirects here and gun/firearm is largely a distinction without a difference.
      2. Secondly, your claims alleging an undiscussed move are easily disproven as false. While there was no dedicated move discussion, each, individual, separate, distinct,unique, discrete, delineated, editor interested in semantic issues was reminded as to the changes being made to terminology. And, only once (on April 14th, 2023) did any editor contest such things on the talk page.
      3. Third, the policy you claim supports your proposal admits that some common names, such as privately made firearm, may be better than others: "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." For instance, heart attack is the most common name for a myocardial infarction, yet that term is not used on Wikipedia. Why? It is simply too ambiguous. Nor are agitprops such as "alleged", "controversy", "hoax" used frequently in article titles, even if common. Why? Such lack neutrality. Whether one considers "Ghost gun" a common name does not allow it to bypass neutrality requirements in article titles or limits on ambiguous slang words.
      4. Fourth, based on the obviously higher prevalence of homemade firearm as compared to "Ghost gun", the suggestion of User:BarrelProof of possibly moving to "homemade firearm" is more easily compelling than a move back to 'ghost gun' .

      The time to mull over this article's title was arguably best done, and indeed done, years earlier. There is no sense in beating the metaphorical 'dead horse'. Let bygones be bygones. Unless you can present any compelling reasons, with evidence, for a shift in decorum other than repeatedly screeching "common name!" over and over again, I see little merit to any of your claims other than merely wishing to make a point. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• I disagree with the assertion that "Privately made firearm" clearly indicates a firearm that was made by an individual. Most privately made firearms are made by private companies, not by individuals at all. (A similar comment was the first comment in this RM, so it shouldn't have been easy to miss.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Found it, and yeah, I largely agree that "Homemade firearm" is likely better for a title, considering it's long historic pedigree and the fact it continues to largely be a more common name than "Ghost gun". I don't think it would get confused with improvised firearm considering similarly situated articles (for instance, amateur chemistry and clandestine chemistry) haven't been consolidated either. In addition, it would also allow this page to become globalized more easily, since the issue of serial numbers, background checks, and other mainly U.S.-centric discussion would no longer need to be emphasized as heavily. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  How many of the sources for this article use the term "Homemade firearm"? The two citations you've just given are for "Homemade gun", not "Homemade firearm". Are we going to automatically assume that every reference to a "ghost gun" is really a reference to a "homemade firearm/gun"? And if so, then why don't we use the common term that the sources themselves use? You seem to be searching for any possible alternative to the obvious name for this article. (Also, I'm not "screeching". Please be nice.) WestRiding24 (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  To list just a few sources used in this article using the word homemade in the very title itself :

  1. "How to Make a Homemade Gun (Full Length)", cited as source 5 in the article.
  2. District seeks to ban ‘@ghost gun’ kits as seizures of homemade weapons soar, cited as source 12 in the article.
  3. "Homemade gun in Stanford student’s murder-suicide spurs question on ‘ghost guns’", cited as source 30 in the article.
  4. "Shinzo Abe's assassin used a handmade firearm", cited as source 38 in the article.
  5. "Illinois bill aims to regulate homemade guns, blueprints", cited as source 77 in the article.

  As for ones that use in it the source, to list a few:

  1. "Homebrew gunsmiths have been making ghost guns for years, machining lower receivers to legally assemble rifles that fall outside the scope of American firearms regulations", cited in source 2 of the article.
  2. "Last week, a teenager used a homemade handgun to fatally shoot two classmates and wound three others at a school in suburban Los Angeles, authorities said. He shot himself and later died", cited from source 4 in the article.
  3. "The Justice Department rule, issued in 2022 to target the rapid proliferation of the homemade weapons, bans "buy build shoot" kits without serial numbers that individuals can get online or at a store without a background check", cited from source 6 in the article.
  4. The Nevada-based company accounted for nearly 90 percent of handmade guns recovered in Los Angeles last year, records show. Amid civil lawsuits, Polymer80 says it follows the law", cited from source 16 in the article.
  5. "Upon a search of his residence, agents with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) recovered around 17 pistols and 24 rifles, most of which appeared home-manufactured and lacked serial numbers", cited from source 19 in the article.

  The above is not exhaustive list, nor should you expect it to be, since I don't wish to waste my time making cited arguments if you're just going to respond by making proof-by-assertion claims (which may prove to be disruptive). In addition, article sources are not the sole deciding factor in a figuring out a common name: "[Common name]...includes but is not limited to usage in the sources used as references for the article. Discussions about article titles commonly look at additional off-site sourcing, such as frequency of usage in news publications, books, and journals[emphasis added]." Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  My concern comes in large part becasue of your edits like this [2]. In that case, you changed almost every use of the sourced term "ghost gun" to "privately made gun", even though the citations had not used that term. If a sources says "X is up 30%", then we shouldn't decide that X=Y and report that "Y is up 30%". The text should reflect what the sources say, not what we wish they had said. That's my opinion. WestRiding24 (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Don’t care. What I said three years ago doesn’t change that you still have presented no evidence to disprove any of my claims on the propriety of certain name usage. Won’t bother corresponding with you until then. If you have any evidence to disprove my cited claims, feel free to present it. Disengaging now and peace-ing out, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support move to Homemade firearm. There are countries in the world where firearms are manufactured by government entities, and "privately made" sounds more like a contrast to that. I would also note, however, that if you go back far enough, there were gunsmiths in American colonial whose work was basically done at their home, rather than at some sort of factory. BD2412 T 17:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's a good point. Personally I would see "Homemade" as meaning "not made by a professional" or perhaps in a professional manufacturing settings, rather than "at home", but there's no reason a professional couldn't ply their craft at home. That might be an argument for another title, but I still think "Homemade" gets the point across suitably, especially for the modern era.

  On that note, Support Homemade firearm, per the common name argument laid out above. ASUKITE 16:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I also support Homemade firearm, but I put my primary expression of support up above with my original comment, thinking it might be less confusing to keep my comments together. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not all homemade firearms are ghost guns

A ghost gun is a homemade firearm that is difficult for law enforcement to trace because it lacks a gun serial number. The lead sentence of the article implies that all homemade firearms are ghost guns, which is not the case.

The lead sentence of the article should be changed to reflect this. T g7 (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This has already been mulled over at length in the move discussion, but I’ll repost it here as for why ghost gun has been rejected in regard to serial numbers:

"It is not the lack of serial numbers, being 'untraceable ghost' as it would, that makes this manner of firearm distinguishable, but the fact it is made by the private individual…From a historical standpoint, an issue that arises from this is that, at least in the United States (which appears to be so heavily emphasized in this article that it has lead to a globalize template being placed), a lack of serial numbers was a common occurrence for much of U.S. history. For instance, U.S. Army weapons made at the Springfield Armory did not have serial numbers until 1865 (even though production began 70 years earlier). Likewise, when the Federal Government did begin considering serial number requirements in earnest, such as with a 1958 regulatory proposal by the IRS, they faced heavy opposition and were ultimately watered down. Even the later 1963 Assassination of John F. Kennedy did little to save early predecessors to what would eventually become the Gun Control Act of 1968 from criticism, of which much was focused on serial number requirements. And, I can find no major news outlets suggesting that such pre-1968 production model firearms are 'ghost guns', so the emphasis on serialization imported by the 'ghost' framing is imprecise.".

If you have anything to disprove the above, please let me know. Until then, peace out. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The article begins, "A homemade firearm, also called a ghost gun..." It seems to me that this sentence is saying that the term "ghost gun" is a synonym of "homemade firearm". But it seems to me that that is not true. The term "ghost gun" does not apply to all homemade firearms, but only to a subset of them. T g7 (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. DN (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

At the bottom where it says: "Challenges Involving PMFs" - According to the ATF, privately made firearms (PMF)s are commonly referred to as “ghost guns” BECAUSE it can be difficult to track them. ATF

"However, PMFs are also made without a serial number placed by a licensed manufacturer at the time the firearm was produced and not all PMFs are illegal and not all firearms are required to have a serial number." ATF

Not that I doubt the editors here have put a considerable amount of thought into this. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar discussion already exists in the archive. DN (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. In the references, I have cited 7 different sources, ranging from Merriam-Webster to the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, stating that ghost guns do not have serial numbers. Note also the two Wiktionary definitions, the first of which mentions the lack of serial numbers and the second of which states a ghost gun is "not detectable by standard gun detection measures". All of these sources point to the conclusion that "ghost gun" is a concept which is distinctly different from the concept of "homemade firearm." The term "ghost gun" is used most often to refer to a gun that is difficult to trace or detect, that is manufactured without a serial number, and that is likely to be involved in illegal activity. So I would advocate that the lead sentence in this article be changed. I also think there should be more clarification of the definition of "ghost gun" somewhere, either in this article or another article. T g7 (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)