Dont you think that if the FBI thought ammo taggent was a useful tool, they would have requested it?
Do you know anything about taggants?
Hint- I gave you THE source study on taggants. Read it, then come back.
Let me ask you a few questions:
How many 9mm rounds can be loaded from one batch of 1000# of smokeless powder?
How many taggants are there in a pound of high explosives?
3.Since Law Enforcement has said they* hope* to get enough taggants from a whole pound of high explosives going off to ID that batch, and given the answer to #1, how many rounds of 9mm ammo must be fired to give that same chance?
3a. Is the chance of recovering a taggant from a gunshot the same as from a bomb?
=. Given those how useful would a taggent be at a shooting?
Come back with the answers and I’ll then discuss further with you.
Oh, and how many years experience as a Federal Agent have you had?
The Congressional Committee determined (this is for taggants in bombs, mind you) :
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.
*
Since they require someone to engineer them, and possibly overcome a large amount of technical challenges, no.
Yes.
It doesn’t matter. Because we are talking about a potentially different technology.
It doesn’t matter. Because we are talking about a potentially different technology.
It doesn’t matter since I don’t think anyone is saying they’d use the same exact technology as is currently used in high explosives.
You don’t want answers. You just want to rage against additional gun laws. Or ammo laws, in this case.
That’s a silly question. Again, we were, or at least, I was, discussing if the technology existed, would it be a good idea to use. You then had that incoherent post about a thousand times the cost. Which doesn’t appear to be a real number.
That isn’t an acceptable cite, any more than a 1950s textbook is an acceptable cite on current cancer treatment.
The last two decades have seen huge shifts in our manufacturing and technical capability. Showing me a finding from two decades ago is close to meaningless. I’d like to see an assessment that’s more recent. Do you understand that?
I don’t think it’s really fair to ask for cites and then refute those with assumptions - especially given you are assuming away the most current available data. You think this is outdated but there is not much more that is current. What if nothing more recent exists, an older cite (20 years is older, but not so much to be irrelevant) is still a cite. You have assumptions.
Essentially what if we had magical technology that does exactly what we want for very little cost and has tremendous benefit - Yes that sounds great! But in my world, this doesn’t exist. My world happens to align with reality. My assumption based world is the same. The OP only assumed away political reality - not scientific. So why is your assumption more valid?
You’re asking for something that doesn’t appear to exist. At least, no one in this thread has managed to find any more recent study on the feasibility of powder taggants. If no one had written anything on the subject of cancer since 1950, then a 1950’s textbook might just be the most current information available.
I agree. What I’m saying, I suppose, is that the cite offered has little to no value.
My initial position was that if the technology could exist at reasonable cost it’s good policy. The pushback seemed to be, anything, anytime, ever is bad policy.
I’m not saying (and have said this before) that the technology exists and or will be cost effective. I’m asking if we have evidence that it isn’t feasible with today’s tech, or that, like DrDeth said, it will raise ammo costs by a thousand times.
I’m fully aware that the question may not be answerable, but many seem ready to answer it definitively based on a 20 year old assessment.
Why don’t you shift one of your personal paradigms and give a straightforward and honest answer to a simple question: Do you consider making legal ownership of guns more difficult for law abiding citizens a bug or a feature?
Just not up for your tired games today. Maybe, someday, when you feel capable of answering questions without debilitating fear of losing on the internet causing you to post evasive, disingenous nonsense, we’ll try again.
Don’t expect anyone else to define your own terms for you. If you don’t even know, the fault for not taking the time to think it out is entirely your own.
Do *you *have a definition of “law-abiding citizen” you’re willing to share with us? 'Cause that’s the nub of it - using the term as a talisman, the way Scumpup and so many like him do, assumes the answer to the question, and in a way that is hostile to any actual exploration of the subject. Challenging it is identical to challenging a tightly-held religious tenet - because that’s essentially what it is.
