See, the idea of people reaching a consensus suggests there's something to what you're suggesting. In this case, should we ban "ghost guns."

And, unsurprisingly, Newsweek found plenty who think we should.

The weapon allegedly used by Luigi Mangione, the suspect in the shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, is believed to be a so-called "ghost gun".

Ghost guns are often untraceable. They are assembled from parts bought separately or even 3D-printed. As such, they are often unregistered, unlike a weapon bought from a manufacturer or a licensed intermediary, such as a gun store.

...

In light of the potential use of a ghost gun in the UnitedHealthcare case—seen as a targeted assassination—is it time for the U.S. to ban all ghost guns? Newsweek asked academics, campaigners, and lawmakers. Here's what they said.

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)

3D printed ghost guns are homemade weapons that, pose a grave danger to the public because they can evade metal detectors and lack serial numbers, which would allow them to be traced.

We must stop the proliferation of ghost guns and enact commonsense solutions to gun violence, including passing my 3D Printed Gun Safety Act, which bans the distribution of the digital files used to create and print those guns.

Amy Cooter, Director of Research, Academic Development, and Innovation (RADI), Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism, Middlebury Institute

Ghost guns should almost certainly be banned, but there are enormous practical difficulties in making that happen such that any regulation would likely merely add time to sentences for already committed or separate criminal actions.

Others they spoke with included Kelly Roskam, Director of Law and Policy, Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions--an organization that vehemently pushes for gun control at every opportunity--Emma Brown, the executive director for Giffords; and Joshua Fisher-Birch from the Counter Extremist Project, which has voiced support for gun control before.

In other words, they didn't ask a single person who wouldn't be automatically inclined to support gun control of any stripe if they thought homemade firearms should be banned.

Interestingly, both Cooter and Fisher-Birch were alternatively questioned for another piece on whether the Unabomber's Manifesto should be banned. After all, it's clear that Mangione read it and favorably reviewed it, with his review laying what we can now see as hints of his own future. They both said no, though Cooter did suggest that other efforts to keep manifestos from being made public were the right path forward.

I actually agree that it shouldn't. Nothing is gained from banning speech, even if it's objectionable speech. In fact, objectionable speech is the speech in most need of protection. However, these two clearly see the right to free speech as being greater than the right to keep and bear arms because neither even hinted of any limits on the manifesto.

But is there a point here? Thompson's killer did have a "ghost gun" after all.

First, let's understand that from what I've been able to find, he had a clean background check. I can't find any hint that he had a criminal record before this. He didn't need a "ghost gun" to be armed.

Plus, we know of him having lived in two states. He was from Maryland, which prohibits "ghost guns," and when he was arrested, he'd shown police a New Jersey ID, which is another state that prohibits them.

Further, police say that rather than the gun coming from a kit, the receiver was 3D printed. That means every other part can be bought as a replacement piece or aftermarket upgrade for traditionally made firearms and so banning "ghost guns" wouldn't actually have stopped anything.

But the anti-gun consensus found by a bunch of anti-gunners doesn't get into that. 

Shocking, I know.