No, sorry. Look, gun grabber dont give a mouse shit about benefits to law Enforcement. They want to take away guns, due to fear- and their fear is a irrational phobia.
Anything that makes it harder for anyone to own any gun is what they want.
It’s already illegal- and has been for decades- for criminals to own guns.
I don’t doubt that there are persons who feel that way. Thinking that’s the way most people who support additional gun laws is delusional nonsense.
I’d say that the irrational fear of gun laws is the more serious phobia in this country.
They. Marvelous word, that.
You aren’t engaging with this thread. You’re just stream-of-consciousness blurting out stuff about gun grabbers. Could you try to engage with the actual issues here?
I suspect that the act of doubling the price of bullets would be more likely to impact “gun crime” than actual crime-solving from the theoretical taggant-and-tracking system. You could argue for the same approach to drunk-driving: double the cost of cars / gasoline / alcoholic beverages, and I suspect you’d see a decrease in drunk-driving fatalities. Ditto for swimming-pool drownings. Double the cost of pools, fewer kids will drown. However, I don’t think any of those are good or moral actions for a government to take.
Cut the “gun grabber” crap and show your math. You made a wild-ass claim of 1000x the cost, so back it up.
Right, just keeping the guns out of felons hands is enough to keep ammo out of their hands as well. As long as criminals willfully steal guns, they’ll willfully steal ammo as well. The tagged gunpowder found at the murder scene in Memphis traces back to some fella in Lincoln, Nebraska … that doesn’t help solve the crime very well.
Oh, there’s a quarter billion guns in the USA that will never be used in a crime.
Nice. Didnt bother to read my other posts, eh? *You’re just stream-of-consciousness blurting out *personal insults.
1.** It cant be done with today’s tech.
**
2.** No Law Enforcement agency has requested it. **
Congress already studied this and found:
The Committee specifically recommended:
“Detection markers in black and smokeless powder should not be implemented at the present time.”
"Identification taggants in black and smokeless powder should not be implemented at the present time."The use of taggants or markers in black and smokeless powders were found to be unfeasible and of uncertain value.
**Taggants can also be removed. **
*Removing taggants from some gunpowders
is considerably simpler than removal from explosives.
Many gunpowder grains are consider-
ably larger than the identification taggants, as
shown in figure 26. Separation may therefore
be accomplished simply by screening, *
Increasing the cost of bullets is a burden. And that burden should be weighed against any benefit to society. Seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones cost money, and performance. But society has decided that they’re worth it for the benefit.
I’d say if: 1. The taggants are possible. 2. They actually impact crime by deterring some, and/or bringing shooters to justice.
Then you have to weigh the costs vs. the benefits. Dismissing it out of hand without that information is exactly what DrDeth is arguing against for the “gun-grabbers”. Knee-jerk, unthinking opposition.
As an aside, “gun-grabbers” is such an inept slur, that it’s hard to take someone using it seriously.
Again, finding a specific incidence that it won’t work in doesn’t mean you’ve effectively argued against its use.
Think about this:
Personal body armor is worthless, because they’ll just shoot you in the head.
Eating well is worthless, because you might slip in the shower.
Finger printing is worthless, because some criminals might wear gloves.
Condoms are worthless, because she might not get pregnant.
You making up a scenario where taggants don’t work, a gun stolen in Nebraska, is utterly useless as an argument against them.
Scenario one:
Gangbanger Joe needs to rob a gas station. He buys a box of bullets. He shoots a clerk. The cops run the taggants and go to his house to arrest him.
Scenario two:
Joe the Accountant sees his wife leaving a car with another man. He follows the man, flags him down on a country road and shoots him in his face. The cops run the taggants and find out Joe bought the bullets.
Scenario three:
Steve the Hunter sells a gun to a guy in a Walmart parking lot. That gun is used two days later. The taggants lead to Steve the Hunter, and he gives them a description, and they get pics from the Walmart security footage.
There, I made up three scenarios. Can you see why it’s so meaningless now?
Not currently possible.
I did give you info, and cites. Hardly unthinking. You have nothing that shows it possible or even feasible- so who is the " unthinking opposition" now?
Since they are not currently feasible for ammunition (and not even useful for explosives, due to cost/benefit considerations) then anyone who demands such a thing is a “gun grabber”.
Why dont you actually read my posts, rather than just talk about “gun grabber”?
The cops run the taggants- whoops- **you can’t run taggants on that small a sample. ** On a large explosion, yes, not on a tiny amount of smokeless powder of which just a tiny amount can be found at the scene.
In any case, all they would tell you is that that is one round of batch 12653, made by the Remington arms company in 2017, a batch of 10000 cases of 480000 boxes of 2400000 rounds. Those cases were shipped as follows…
Good luck finding* that* needle. :rolleyes:
Nonsense. I simply was responding to the incoherent post you made earlier.
Can you cite that? That’s a pending question in this thread. I’ve seen technical problems from 1998 listed, but I’d like to know what the situation is now.
So?
That’s a reasonable argument. If it’s true. Have a cite? This is exactly what we’re discussing, and this sort of thing is much more useful than screaming about gun-grabbers and making up numbers to scare people (1000x the cost!!! Oh noes!!!)
At this time. When is that quote from?
That is a silly objection. No one is going to do that. Because people are lazy. Crimes are generally impulsive. No one is going to sift their fucking powder and reload their bullets. And if one guy in ten thousand does do that, well you caught the other 9999 guys, right? Jesus-merciful-fuck.
You didn’t give cites to what I asked about. You said it was 1000x the cost. I’m guess I know where that number came from, and I’m guessing it doesn’t receive a lot of sunshine.
You have not cited this. You have asserted it.
I read and responded to a post where you incoherently inveighed about gun-grabbers and posted made up numbers.
This is the key I think. First #1 and #2 must happen or be able to happen. Currently that’s not the case so we’re not yet at the cost/benefit weighing stage. Because without something more tangible for #1 and #2, they hypothetical allows any assumption for the cost/benefit criteria.
The most currently available evidence says #1 and #2 are not possible. That is the default position that the proposal must first overcome. It’s not dismissal out of hand when the most current actual evidence states this.
I think you meant to say “relevant” or something else, rather than reputable. The data contained in the NAS report is certainly reputable. It may or may not be current but it’s reputation is not in doubt. I think reading the report, looking at the various challenges, etc. is far from dismissing out of hand.
I am not so sure that there would certainly be savings in policing costs. How are you coming to that conclusion? What about the cost of maintaining accurate data, and the cost of inaccurate data?
The current clearance rate for homicide is a little over 62%. I don’t know how that breaks down for homicides using firearms vs. not. But with about 10K homicides with firearms each year, the population of potential benefits for unsolved firearm homicides is about 4k/year. There is probably an impact on firearm homicides that would have been solved without this tech, but I can’t determine if that would be a net positive, negative, or neutral. There is also the potential for an increased deterrent, but much of this is speculation because…the technology doesn’t exist.
So back to the original proposition - do you have any evidence that the #1 and #2 conditions are true? Because if we are going on assumptions, that leaves things pretty wide open.
Cite? Preferably recent?
I’m not saying it’s possible, I’m saying if it were, it would be intelligent policy. You are saying it’s impossible, and not citing it with something current. I’d like real info.
Yes, if it doesn’t work, it wouldn’t work.
But perhaps, it could be resolved down to hundreds of cases, or individual cases, boxes or rounds. I know that bullets are made in very large batches, but perhaps information could be encoded after they’re boxed.
Maybe the manufacturing process could be altered so that there aren’t huge belts of thousands of rounds bumping down into hoppers, but boxing them as they are filled, increasing the cost to manufacture, but perhaps not so much that the benefit outweighs the burden.
Or maybe some smart-assed engineer can come up with something neither of us can think of right now.
Lobohan,
The problem here is, since the technology doesn’t exist, no one knows what the cost of this theoretical technology would actually be, and that’d be an important consideration in any cost-benefit analysis.
I agree.
These types of government programs seem to very rarely work well. MD and NY’s experiments with ballistic fingerprinting were failures, as was Canada’s long gun registry. New York and Connecticut had dismally-low turnout #'s for their most recent round of “assault weapon” registration.
What makes any advocates or supporters of this one think it would turn out any different? Just a hope that this time government will do it better / smarter / cheaper?
I’d guess right now that anything that doubled the price of ammo would face a massive backlash, much like the (failed) M855 ban did.
All except this whole idea of a cop “running the taggants” … no … the samples are sent to a special laboratory and analysed by a highly trained technician observing a strict set of protocols so that the final report can be admitted into a court of law. Unless we’re fully funding this system (ha ha ha), this may takes weeks if not months. If this is all the evidence you have, then I’m acquitting. I understand the suspect bought the bullet, but the crime of murder requires proof the suspect pulled the trigger.
Meanwhile, cop has the bullet and he’s already matched it to the gun using the rifle marks. The suspect owns the gun used, it’s safe to assume he bought bullets for it. Proving he bought the specific bullet doesn’t bring you any closer to proving he pulled that trigger.
Again, my point is that we should just regulate the guns, regulating ammo instead doesn’t make any sense. The guns themselves are self-identifying just by how they’re manufactured, making ammo self-identifying is just an expensive boon-doggle. If the goal is to limit gun use, then just limit gun use and be done with it.
Because it’s a different technology. Every attempt at heavier than air flight failed until it didn’t.
If the system is as cumbersome as you say. But if, say, a cloud of rugged microsopic RFID tags could be used, that could be detected by someone in the field in real time.