There’s nothing funny about gun crime rising, Mr ‘Tuff’ Paws. The areas with the highest crime problems suffer the most from the liberal gun policies in the U.S. It’s understandable that they will be the first to want to do something about that problem. I’m apalled that people from other areas with lesser problems are laughing at the failure of CA dealing with this problem, when their own liberal gun policies are in fact largely responsible for this failure. Responsible gun-owners my back-end.
But does that mean that the noble art of ballistics used in crime scene investigations is totally irrelevant?
One thing I’ve learnt, is that the fact that criminals own guns is largely thanks to ‘legal owners’. The criminals get them by buying or getting them from friends or relatives, buying them legally (yes, really, even if that’s only 16%), or stealing them from legal owners. I’ve posted a link to a research into gun trafficking, that reveals a lot. But why read it, huh?
Oh, and you think longer sentences helps more than marking the bullets? Talk about funny.
I susspect a significant number of gun criminals are too dumb/lazy to defeat a system that identity marks every bullet. If this can be done really cheaply I would have no problem with such a law ensuring bullets are individually marked in a way that would survive the shooting of the bullet. But if the methofs are expensive and/or unreliable then it is a reasonable idea but would make a stupid law.
California has anything but liberal gun laws. What is funny (ironic, not ha ha) is that as California increases its control on the legal ownership of firearms on an almost annual basis through legilsation, gun crimes continue to rise.
Your cite is irrelevant. If a criminal buys a gun from someone, they have broken the law. If a gun owner knowingly sells a gun to a criminal, they have broken the law as well. If that criminal steals a gun, they have broken the law. So far three separate laws have failed and that criminal still gets his gun. In other words, if someone is willing to break the law to obtain what they desire, all of the rules on the books will do nothing to stop him.
I predict an exploding black market business in bullets from, say, Kentucky. There are going to be some very rich, uh, “entrepreneurs,” if this gets passed.
There might be a way to do this. But I can’t think of it. If there is, it’s bound to be incredibly cost prohibitive.
Would any business make a specialize production run for 5% (WAG) of their product? And Track it, indefinitely? When that product can be bought out of state and stored for years instead? I have thousands of rounds of .22lr that my father gave me years ago. Getting caught with ‘un-marked’ bullets is a misdemeanor offense? Gang banger types won’t care about that. I’d have to.
I hate to think that the CA legislature hasn’t thought of these things… But maybe they have.
I don’t know what kind of hit ammunition manufacturers would take by not selling to CA, but this could prevent handgun ammo from being sold in CA.
I am still trying to figure how a serial number that would be big enough to identify a bullet, out of the estimated 15,000,000 bullets made daily would fit on .22 lets say.
The mighty .22 caliber bullet is 22 hundredths of an inch in diameter. Typically, is is a lead bullet that upon impact flattens to a bit smaller than a dime. Any markings in the sides of the bullet would: a.) affect accuracy as the bullet is now disformed on one side. and b.) be completely gone after the bullet expands and the original shape is deformed.
Sure the number could be micro engraved by a laser like on a diamond on the inside or the bottom of the bullet itself, but that would not satisfy the previously cited legislation which calls for a visible marking. I’m still shaking my head at this one. :rolleyes:
Why? Speaking as an Engineer and a long-time gun owner, I can see no way to reliably and effectively comply with the law and maintain readability of the serial number after impact. It is “obviously dumb”, and as a sidebar, your ideas for implementation do not appear to comply with the law, nor appear to be workable.
Another conveniently overlooked thing by the proponents is that many calibers of handgun ammunition are also used by a rifle model (Thompson contenders shoot rifle rounds, yet are definitely handguns - and Ruger makes a .44 cal carbine. And what about the .22?). So we’re actually looking to register nearly all ammunition made, in terms of volume, right? Let’s just be honest about this right here.
The greater goal of reducing gun violence is not dumb. The greater goal of decreasing fatalities is not dumb. But plans like this, obviously constructed by technologically and operationally illiterate persons - or, deliberately constructed with malicious ignorance such as to be impossible to implement and to be an effective end-run ban on ammunition - are either dumb or dishonest. Don’t confuse criticism of the plan with criticism of the goals.
Motives aside (I’ll grant a “purest-of-motives” motive, and not some nefarious agenda for the duration of this post), the program quite simply overlooks three major impediments to it’s efficacy: Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona.
Without similar requirements in those three states, the real criminal suppliers of firearms will also supply quantities of “clean” ammunition (for a fee, of course), obtained out-of-state. While this will necessarily increase the criminal’s logistical problems, and possibly be some form of “speedbump” in the flow of bullets getting to the criminal’s guns, it’ll also now create new criminal opportunities, which I’m quite sure they won’t hesitate to take advantage of.
“Shipping a hundred kilos of cocaine to L.A. from Arizona?”
“Why not throw a few boxes of bullets in the car while you’re at it?”
The manufacturers of bullets won’t be stoopid enough to actually ship unmarked ammo to Cali.; hence very few of these marked bullets will wind up being used in crime by any but the dumbest of criminals (which the police will happily scoop up and incarcerate; “you takes what breaks you gets, and don’t complain”). But the Darwinian proces will soon weed out such morons (and I doubt that there’ll be all that many), and you’re back to square one.
That’s all notwithstanding the technical problems Una raises.
No, actually weeding out such morons would help, because it’s sad but true, the average violent criminal is either stupid or highly undereducated.
On the contrary, my site is very relevant. The conclusion from the failure of the three laws you mention and the article together is that the widespread private ownership of guns is the main cause for criminal gun possession, and suggests very clearly (as comparing international data also suggests) that reducing the number of guns in hands of private citizens also reduces the number of guns in the hands of criminals.
Just as the NRA is supporting safety standards now, I predict they will one day support a law such as this one so long as it helps postpone the inevitable.
Not to slight Una, but they were raised before she joined this thread.
People have just chosen to ignore the posts that contain all the technical problems with this bill, and/or bring up fanciful ways around them that are just as technologically invalid as the original method.
I’m a complete fucking idiot, a moron, and an imbecile who doesn’t immediately see that this is a stupid law. I buy extended warranties and think the Grand Canyon was made by Noah’s flood. But please, stoop down to my meager level and enlighten my feeble little mind. Pound some enlightenment into my ignorant, egg-shell like skull, which for some reason has an affinity for polite explanations instead of condescending statements.
Please: explain why simply stamping a serial number several times on the bullet would not comply with the law or be workable? If you used serial numbers composed of letters and numbers, and assuming that 15,000,000 rounds of each caliber were being manufactured in a given day, you could go for over 500 years using 8 character serial numbers. I see no reason why even small caliber ammunition couldn’t be stamped repeatedly with 8 tiny (but still visible) characters.
Would it add to the cost of ammunition? Sure, but it’s hard to say how much. Suffice it to say I don’t think one extra step in the manufacturing process is going to make it unaffordable. Them highfalutin engineers can make some pretty fancy machines! Will it work in all cases? Of course not, but it doesn’t have to work in all cases to be useful legislation–considering that gun crime is serious business, a sizeable minority will is all thats needed. Do bullets deform? Of course! But given that ballistic evidence is frequently used in criminal trials, they obviously don’t always deform enough to obscure markings that were made before the bullet left the barrel. Can criminal simply go to another state to get their bullets? Yup! But will they? Are most gun crimes premeditated?
Once again: I’m clinically retarded, and don’t always see things that are obvious, so explanations and reasoning would be appreciated in this debate.
P.S.: My engineering degree is in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. What’s yours in? Anything directly applicable to this debate?
If you know the cops can trace your bullets back to you if you buy them at a gun shop, why would you buy them there if you were a criminal? If I were one, I’d get a handloader kit for a few bucks and have all of the untraceable ammo I need, in no time flat.
If I were too lazy to do so, I’m sure an enterprising person would sell me “clean” pre-numbered or hand loaded ammo for an appropriate price.
This will then work like the much-heralded ballistic fingerprinting, where tons of resources were expended for no real benefit.
There are legitimate things that can be done to curb gun violence - we’ve done some wonderful things here in Virginia to do this. This program is just a waste of resources that could be used to prosecute and convict gun crimes, for starters.
Just so you know, my degree is in political science, and I’m a systems engineer for a Navy weapons program. But I am also a Navy veteran, qualified on several small arms. I’m also a gun owner, handguns and long guns both, and I’ve been shooting recreationally since I was twelve.
Dude, your typical criminal isn’t as smart as you. Most gun crimes aren’t mafia-style hits that involve several days of careful planning. Fully 40% of murders are fall-out from arguments.
First, a few (or even a hundred) newspaper articles aren’t a good way to make a point when you’re talking about broad trends in gun crime.
Second (actually third or fourth at this point in the thread): The legistlation does not have to make ALL gun crimes easier to solve, or even most–a significant minority is still a worthwile reduction when you consider how serious most violent gun crimes are.
That’s a good point. Which is why I think you have to look at the ballistic fingerprinting effort, a similarly well-meaning effort that cost millions of dollars per year to implement.
Did it make all gun crimes easier to solve, or even most, or even a minority? In fact, it has solved no crimes at all.
Actually, the evidence I provided is better than that you provided to back up your contention that criminals are stupid and don’t plan for their crimes.
Clearly, many do.
Now, if you have some evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it.
But please, stoop down to my meager level and enlighten my feeble little mind. Pound some enlightenment into my ignorant, egg-shell like skull, which for some reason has an affinity for polite explanations instead of condescending statements.