Comment by Rebelgecko | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Rebelgecko | Hacker News Reader

Why are journalists writing about guns so bad? I don't want to totally derail the thread by going down the "fake news" rabbit hole, but when an article about something I'm marginally knowledgeable about has huge inaccuracies, it makes me wonder: is it just difficult to fact-check this particular topic? Or are all news articles equally untrustworthy and I'm just not informed enough to realize it?

Anyways, literally the first sentence of the article is false[1]. Self-made firearms in California are required to have a serial number, must be put into the state registry (a somewhat byzantine process), and are illegal to resell[2]. In other words, the gun is either legal OR untraceable. It can't be both at the same time.

[1]: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/consu...

[2]: For ones manufactured after 2018, your family can't even inherit them when you die— they have to be surrendered to the police for destruction. If you have a relative you really don't like, you should definitely bequeath them your homemade guns— there's a non-zero chance they'll end up in prison for possession.

Writing and journalism have gone to hell because we don't pay journalists/writers like we used to. I'm increasingly seeing these sorts of complaints. When I point out the connection between lack of adequate pay and poor writing/journalism, I get ridiculous rebuttals about how "That's their job to fact check!" And when I tell people that expecting good writing without paying the writers is essentially an expectation of slave labor, people get offended.

I'm a writer. I'm dirt poor. I can't get adequate funding for my blogs. When I complain about my poverty, I get told to "get a real job." When I point out the rise of the Gig Economy and the fact that we have worse income inequality than in The Gilded Age, people mumble some other bullshit excuse and refuse to hear that these supposed (well paid) "real jobs" are in rather short supply, so, no, it's not laziness on my part.

It's a broken model. If we want quality writing, we need to find some way to pay writers for their work so they can fact check and spell check etc.

Can you explain the mistake the author made in more detail? I think he's confusing "it's legal to own an 80% lower and some gun parts with no serial number until you mill the lower" with "it's legal to own the resulting gun", but I'm not a gun owner and don't know the law.

I think your assessment is correct. AFAIK, there’s no legal definition of an 80% lower, and the only cases I know of that have tested the idea had to do with completely milled lowers which were then filled with plastic to make it easier to mill. The feds didn’t like this, so I don’t think those are sold commercially any more.

I believe OP is right, though I’m not a resident of CA: you can have a non-functional piece of metal or a registered functional “firearm” (which the feds say is the lower). A functional, unregistered lower would be against CA law.

In other states, like neighboring AZ, there’s no issue purchasing an unregistered, non-functional lower, finishing it into a functional piece, and then using it for private use (including non-commercial sale).

What I'd suspect is happening:

In California you need the state DOJ's permission to mill an 80% lower, then they give you a serial number that you have to engrave on it within 10 days.

Other states have different laws. Some are similar to CA but most are less restrictive. There are places where it is true to say that "Such firearms have no serial numbers, and ... legally bypass background checks and registration regulations." But the author is conflating the national laws with the laws for manufacturing in California (without mentioning that what happened in California is actually multiple felonies). It's either ignorant, unintentionally misleading, or pushing a narrative.

Yea maybe they should make some laws that require all guns to have a serial number, that should prevent all this... oh wait

It wouldn’t make for a very interesting article if the author wrote “criminal breaks the law”.

It’s because they’re pushing an agenda. It’s either their own or one that has been blessed by a superior.

Gell-Mann Amnesia!

https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com