# Yet another reason to Pit the NRA - no taggants in gunpowder **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 18, 2013, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031 "2013-04-18T13:03:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/241 "2013-04-21T17:16:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …Only someone that is not paying attention would use that point that even I already made. What do you think was the reason I mentioned already that you are stuck in the 90’s? I already pointed out that science has marched on so you are reduced to make a straw man of even what the scientists in the piece report. Your own link proves that there are efforts to find taggants that would work which disproves your own theory that the NRA is somehow preventing taggant research. :smack: No matter how much time, money, and effort is put into a security system, if the system can be easily defeated, you’ve wasted your time, money, and effort. The use of taggants makes black powder/smokeless propellant unstable and unsafe and can be defeated. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/242 "2013-04-21T17:40:50Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Your own link proves that there are efforts to find taggants that would work which disproves your own theory that the NRA is somehow preventing taggant research. :smack: Smack yourself again, it is not a theory, read the cites; and you are really dumb if you think that I’m claiming that no others are doing research, the point is that we should be in an even better position if it wasn’t for the NRA. BTW, my focus is on criticizing the anti-science efforts of the NRA. > [@doorhinge](#): > > No matter how much time, money, and effort is put into a security system, if the system can be easily defeated, you’ve wasted your time, money, and effort. The use of taggants makes black powder/smokeless propellant unstable and unsafe and can be defeated. And you only show others that indeed you are just happy to remain stuck in the 90’s, just go away and watch reruns of Ren and Stimpy. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/243 "2013-04-21T18:17:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Sorry for your forced ignorant points, but I already cited what the NRA is doing, you are not only denying reality but idiotically telling others that what was cited does not exist. > > Good luck with that. Where did you cite what the NRA is doing? I have read your quotes, and in post 202 you offered the following quote: > [@](#): > > The NRA opposed any type of study in 1996 in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing that killed 168 and injured more then 680 people. The NRA eventually agreed to partner with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on taggants in black and smokeless powder. The NRA then, however, released a press release on the study in 1999 claiming, that the study says, “Identification taggants in black and smokeless powder should not be implemented at the present time.” The quote goes on to quote the National Academy’s comments on the same study, saying that more research is needed to show whether or not taggants could be effective. You then link to a Salon article that criticizes the NRA for its efforts to limit research into gun deaths and the danger of firearms. Since then, I can find no cite from you at all that mention the NRA. So I deny that you have “already cited what the NRA is doing,” if by that you mean actively opposing research into gunpowder taggants. At most, they have declined to enter into further partnerships for this type of research. I am aware of now law or regulation – and you have not quoted or cited any – that show any prohibition into doing such research. Instead, you’ve shown that the government has passed laws supposedly at the behest of the NRA opposing firearms danger research, and hoped the casual reader would impute the same behavior to gunpowder taggant research. But that isn’t the truth, is it? So as far as I can tell, your idea of “reprehensible behavior” is failing to actively fund and/or partner with anyone do do any more research on the subject of gunpowder taggants. Is that correct? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/244 "2013-04-21T18:20:56Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Smack yourself again, it is not a theory, read the cites; and you are really dumb if you think that I’m claiming that no others are doing research, the point is that we should be in an even better position if it wasn’t for the NRA. BTW, my focus is on criticizing the anti-science efforts of the NRA. > And you only show others that indeed you are just happy to remain stuck in the 90’s, just go away and watch reruns of Ren and Stimpy. 🙂 Hahahaha. It looks like you’ve run out of argument and are trying to crawfish a bit. Maybe you should go away and find a taggant system that would actually work in the real world. But remember, if it can be easily defeated, it ain’t worth the price you pay for it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/245 "2013-04-21T18:27:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Since then, I can find no cite from you at all. So I deny that you have “already cited what the NRA is doing,” if by that you mean actively opposing research into gunpowder taggants. At most, they have declined to enter into further partnerships for this type of research. I am aware of now law or regulation – and you have not quoted or cited any – that show any prohibition into doing such research. > > So as far as I can tell, your idea of “reprehensible behavior” is failing to actively fund and/or partner with anyone do do any more research on the subject of gunpowder taggants. > > Is that correct? No, and it does really sound silly to say there is no cite when “since then” is one. The point of the latest defeat of background checks is related to this, once again the NRA by not giving cover or permission to politicians (I have seen the propaganda, suffice to say the reprehensible behavior does include lies and fraud IMHO) to allow them to support funding for common sense research is IMHO shooting itself in the foot. The lack of permission to act on the conclusions from that research, by permission I do refer to the reality that the NRA still has a lot of weight on what a politician can do, I could say more now as the republican politicians that showed some moderation now can expect even more radical opposition in their districts. > **[Congress and the NRA Suppressed Research on Gun Violence](https://slate.com/technology/2012/12/gun-violence-research-nra-and-congress-blocked-gun-control-studies-at-cdc.html)** > > Read more on Slate about gun control. > [@](#): > > But as Congress considers new laws, the scientific research we need to craft the best policies is in short supply. This is by design. > > In the 1990s, politicians backed by the NRA attacked researchers for publishing data on firearm research. For good measure, they also went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the research. According to the NRA, such science is not “legitimate.” To make sure federal agencies got the message, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) sponsored an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount it had spent on firearms research the previous year. > > But last summer, Dickey recanted. No longer in office, he wrote an editorial stating that “scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries and that ways to prevent firearm deaths can be found without encroaching on the rights of legitimate gun owners.” > > To understand more about what we know and don’t know about the science of firearm violence, Slate contacted Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis Medical Center. For over 30 years, he has studied firearm violence and published more than 100 studies in the field. > > Paul Thacker: Since the ban on CDC funding for firearm violence research, how do scientists such as yourself find money for this type of science? > Garen Wintemute: The National Institute of Justice had a highly respected program of research in the field, smaller than CDC’s. That program ended several years ago when its program officer, a strong advocate for research on violence, retired. A number of private foundations also provided funding for this research, particularly in the 1990s, but many of them have left the field as well. Today, to my knowledge, there are fewer than five. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/246 "2013-04-21T18:33:46Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Hahahaha. It looks like you’ve run out of argument and are trying to crawfish a bit. Nope, as noticed you have not touched at all what the cites I had reporting on what the NRA is doing, it is you who has no arguments. > [@doorhinge](#): > > Maybe you should go away and find a taggant system that would actually work in the real world. But remember, if it can be easily defeated, it ain’t worth the price you pay for it. Case in point. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/247 "2013-04-21T18:52:19Z")
BTW **Bricker** , if what I and cites report is not accurate one could find very quickly if the NRA then supported or approved any further research on the issue, but \*\* as others posters have demonstrated\*\* 🙂 it is clear to me that the NRA is stuck in the 90’s. The Salon article points to why the NRA continues with this anti-science bent. > **[Congress and the NRA Suppressed Research on Gun Violence](https://slate.com/technology/2012/12/gun-violence-research-nra-and-congress-blocked-gun-control-studies-at-cdc.html)** > > Read more on Slate about gun control. And going back to the issue of lead in bullets cited early, that shows to me that clearly this anti-science element of the NRA is not good; however, as I see it, it is useful IMHO as it gives one more clarity in controversial subjects, because if one important subject related to science is rejected by an organization for political reasons it \*\*should \*\*lead others to then take with even larger grains of salt whatever that organization claims to be the truth. The point here is that if not even science can make an organization like the NRA to drop an issue like lead in bullets and continues to lie to their members, well then I would have to say that one should look for a better organization than that one. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/248 "2013-04-21T18:59:20Z")
We’ve seen that mandated use of taggants has been blocked. Has research on taggants been blocked? This isn’t CDC territory, so their defunding in the 90s is irrelevant. NSF has spent a tidy sum in this area. Is there any evidence of political interference? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/249 "2013-04-21T19:14:40Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > We’ve seen that mandated use of taggants has been blocked. Has research on taggants been blocked? This isn’t CDC territory, so their defunding in the 90s is irrelevant. NSF has spent a tidy sum in this area. Is there any evidence of political interference? AS mentioned, it should be easy to find any support for further research in taggants supported by the NRA; as it is, one has to conclude that the status from the 90’s remains the same, and elsewhere the NRA continues with the interference. [http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx](http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx) > [@](#): > > A report released in January 2013 by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns (PDF, 2MB), founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, found that since 1996 the CDC’s funding for firearm injury prevention has fallen 96 percent and is now just $100,000 of the agency’s $5.6 billion budget. The CDC’s online guide for grants funded by the agency’s Injury Control Research Centers currently includes a section titled Prohibition of Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities, which states that “In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the language in the CDC’s Appropriations Act to mean that CDC’s funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.” > > Following the January 2011 shootings in Tucson, Ariz., (in which Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was injured), the New York Times published an article reporting that the CDC went so far as to “ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the NRA as a courtesy.” In response to this report, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence sent a letter (PDF, 647) in March 2011 to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius expressing concern that the agency was giving the NRA a “preferred position,” and urging that the NRA not be given the opportunity to exercise special influence over CDC’s firearms-related research. > > In December 2011, Congress added language equivalent to the Dickey amendment to fiscal year 2012 appropriations legislation that funded the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (PDF, 1.3MB), stating that “none of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” The NRA’s advocacy efforts that lead to this amendment are thought to be a response to a 2009 American Journal of Public Health article by Branas et al., titled “Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault,” presenting the results of research that was funded by the NIH’s National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. > > Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, has been vocal about what essentially has amounted to a ban on federal funding for gun violence research, claiming that “The scientific community has been terrorized by the NRA.” In July 2012, former Representative Dickey co-authored a Washington Post op-ed with Rosenberg, announcing that his views had reversed since he introduced the Dickey amendment in 1996. Wrote Dickey and Rosenberg, “We were on opposite sides of the heated battle 16 years ago, but we are in strong agreement now that scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries and that ways to prevent firearm deaths can be found without encroaching on the rights of legitimate gun owners. The same evidence-based approach that is saving millions of lives from motor-vehicle crashes, as well as from smoking, cancer and HIV/AIDS, can help reduce the toll of deaths and injuries from gun violence.” ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/250 "2013-04-21T19:25:10Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > AS mentioned, it should be easy to find any support for further research in taggants supported by the NRA; as it is, one has to conclude that the status from the 90’s remains the same, and elsewhere the NRA continues with the interference. > [http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx](http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx) Ok just as I thought. The United States government is actively funding research in taggant technology, without interference. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/251 "2013-04-21T19:28:56Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Ok just as I thought. The United States government is actively funding research in taggant technology, without interference. Not sure where you get that. > **[How the gun lobby has already blocked Boston's bombing investigators](https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/how-the-gun-lobby-has-already-blocked-boston-msna56696)** > > One avenue of investigation is already closed off to forensic officials working the Boston Marathon bombing case due to efforts dating back decades by the Natio > [@](#): > > The same NRA, however, has twice deployed its lobbyists to block the mandated use of identification taggants by gunpowder manufacturers. > The first time came more than thirty years ago, after a wave of bombings in the 1970s mainly by the radical left Weather Underground and Puerto Rican nationalist groups. > A congressional study in 1980 found: “Identification taggants would facilitate the investigation of almost all significant criminal bombings in which commercial explosives were used.” > But the NRA successfully lobbied to have black and smokeless gunpowders exempted from the explosives required to include taggant markers. Members of Congress—including then-New York Rep. Charles Schumer– tried and failed again after the 1993 New York City truck bombing of the World Trade Center. The Clinton administration renewed the call for legislation requiring identifying taggants right after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, whose 18th anniversary is Friday. > The NRA backed a National Research Council committee in 1998 to examine taggant technologies, later claiming the committee found them to be “unfeasible and of uncertain value.” > In fact, the committee concluded: “Identification taggants and an associated record-keeping system could be of further assistance in tracking down bombers in cases where basic forensic techniques fail.” The committee added that “additional research on these systems is needed to determine whether they are safe and effective.” > Little or no known public research has been done on the matter since, as the NRA gained more national influence in the 2000s during the administration led by President George W. Bush. As it was pointed before, research is part of the issue, but the most important one IMHO is in the blocks made against the deployment and use of the technology. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/252 "2013-04-21T19:34:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not sure where you get that. > > [How the gun lobby has already blocked Boston's bombing investigators](http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/04/17/how-the-gun-lobby-has-already-blocked-bostons-bombing-investigators/) > AS it was pointed before, research is part of the issue, but the most important one IMHO is in the blocks made against the deployment and use of the technology. I think that article was posted earlier. Nobody has demonstrated that we have an adequate technology to deploy and use. However, the government is actively pursuing new technology. This is a good thing IMO. I’m a big fan of science. I was worried about roadblocks to the current NSF-funded work. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherUninformedOpinion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@JustAnotherUninformedOpinion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherUninformedOpinion)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/253 "2013-04-21T19:44:30Z")
> [@artemis](#): > > I get the feeling that many of the pro-taggant people just don’t get just how much gunpowder (both in loose from, and within ammunition and fireworks) is sold to the general public every year. They’re thinking the system would be similar in scope to the ones used to track high explosives, and not seeing the difference in scale between effectively tracking a true commodity substance versus a substance manufactured in smaller lots for tightly restricted sale. If they thought about what would be required to tag gasoline or those barbecue propane tanks so that every gallon of gas or propane tank sold could be traced back to a unique sale point (or a small number of possible points), they’d probably dismiss such a system immediately as impractical (at least for now). But somehow with gunpowder it’s all different, even though in reality it’s not. The Swiss have tagged black powder (though not all black powder) for years. Their use of taggants has solved hundreds of bombings: [http://www.sciencenews.org/sn\_arch/9\_14\_96/bob1.htm](http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arch/9_14_96/bob1.htm) The taggant technology they use was developed in the 1980s, and it works as intended, in spite of the free availability of magnets. If taggants had been present in the Boston bombings, investigators would have had a thread to pursue long before the photos were posted on Thursday. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/254 "2013-04-21T19:49:12Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > I think that article was posted earlier. Nobody has demonstrated that we have an adequate technology to deploy and use. However, the government is actively pursuing new technology. This is a good thing IMO. I’m a big fan of science. I was worried about roadblocks to the current NSF-funded work. That is not what is reported, as mentioned, the situation would be much better if it was not for that NRA blocking. And when I look at even the media that supports the NRA they are also stuck in the 90’s, the point stands, can you cite anything from the NRA that shows that they are over this: “Identification taggants in black and smokeless powder should not be implemented at **the present time**." That BTW came from the 90’s study, a new study that shows how reasonable the NRA is, were they look at supporting more recent research that looks at the implementation of the new technologies is sorely missing. What is needed is a cite that shows that the NRA is now looking at the march of progress on this, or we should just report that indeed we should ignore them for denying also the march of time itself. Unfortunately we still have to deal with the politicians that continue to block the implementation of the new technology that are in the pockets of the NRA. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/255 "2013-04-21T20:02:51Z")
> [@](#): > > …“Identification taggants in black and smokeless powder should not be implemented at the present time."… What could be clearer? The researchers would have concluded that taggants should not be implemented at any time, past, present or future had it not been for the relentless power of the gun-grabber lobby. It is a remarkable that a scrappy little group like the NRA, with its woefully inadequate funding and influence, managed to squeak out even that minor victory for truthiness! The gun-grabber juggernaut has already crushed the pediatricians and statisticians under its heel. How long before they enlist the Hollywood liberal elite and their Homintern allies, and detectives and spies are seen brandishing frisbees and hacky-sacks? Ask yourself this: when have you seen a Hollywood depiction of a gay wedding between two CCWs? Well, there you have it! Wake up, America! ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/256 "2013-04-21T20:20:11Z")
Again, why do we keep talking about research? None of that changes the simple reality this is a proposal to fix something that is not a problem on any large scale at all. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/257 "2013-04-21T20:33:50Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Again, why do we keep talking about research? None of that changes the simple reality this is a proposal to fix something that is not a problem on any large scale at all. I already pointed out, times change… but it seem that it does not to many on the right. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/258 "2013-04-21T20:40:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I already pointed out, times change… but it seem that it does not to many on the right. 😉 “Times change” is meaningless. Either there is an actionable problem or there isn’t. There’s no evidence there is a problem here, it’s a solution looking for a problem. Or at best it’s a solution to a very minor problem. I agree if the NRA is suppressing research somehow (and I won’t even wade into that further), that’s a shitty thing to be doing. But that’s got nothing to do with whether or not **we need** a black powder taggant system or whether or not it would actually help solve very many crimes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/259 "2013-04-21T20:47:54Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > AS mentioned, it should be easy to find any support for further research in taggants supported by the NRA; as it is, one has to conclude that the status from the 90’s remains the same, and elsewhere the NRA continues with the interference. > [http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx](http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx) I don’t claim the NRA is actively supporting taggant research. I claim the NRA has been silent on the issue since the study in 1999 was completed. I claim the NRA has done nothing to either suppress to encourage research on gunpowder taggants in the past thirteen years. My proof is the utter absence of any reports from the past thirteen years that shows any active steps taken by the NRA to frustrate such research. You offer another link showing the NRA has discouraged research into gun violence. You have proved the point that the NRA HAS discouraged gun violence research. But research into gun violence and research into gunpowder taggants are two quite different fields. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/260 "2013-04-21T21:11:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > BTW **Bricker** , if what I and cites report is not accurate one could find very quickly if the NRA then supported or approved any further research on the issue, but \*\* as others posters have demonstrated\*\* 🙂 it is clear to me that the NRA is stuck in the 90’s. > > The Salon article points to why the NRA continues with this anti-science bent. > > [Gun violence research: NRA and Congress blocked gun-control studies at CDC.](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html) Hahaha. The CDC claimed that firearm use was a disease and therefore under their control. Congress disagreed and the CDC lost the funding that they were using to conduct that study. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031.md?page=14)