# 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:** 14
**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, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/261 "2013-04-21T21:21:12Z")
> [@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. Excuse me, but as I clearly said above: > [@Bricker](#): > > 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. This is at least the third time you have to refute this claim by demanding I show evidence that the NRA “supported or approved any further research on the issue.” THAT IS NOT MY CLAIM. I say they have neither supported or discouraged any further research in the area of gunpowder taggants since 1999. Do you agree? I am not interested in any other reasons you have to dislike the NRA. Whether they are generally anti-science, whether they hang their toilet paper over or under the roll, and whether they like Kirk or Picard better are all fascinating but non-responsive to the very simple factual claim above. Do you agree that the NRA has neither supported or discouraged any further research in the area of gunpowder taggants since 1999? ---
**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, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/262 "2013-04-21T21:24:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …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. You can fund a study or you can ask someone else to fund a study. The object is to find a taggant system that isn’t unsafe and isn’t easily defeated. You could ask the NRA for permission to run a study but nobody will know what you’re talking about. ---
**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, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/263 "2013-04-21T22:36:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …Do you agree that the NRA has neither supported or discouraged any further research in the area of gunpowder taggants since 1999? They were opposed in 1999, yes? So, absent any evidence of a change of mind, aren’t we reasonable to presume they still are? ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/264 "2013-04-22T01:40:34Z")
I think it’s fair to say the NRA did not prevent the use of taggants in gunpowder, the facts of the matter did. Also the NRA was not the only organization opposed. I disagree with the NRA’s positions on almost everything, but in this instance it seems the practical problems defeat the idea of taggants in gunpowder. If the NRA wanted to show good will, they would support federal funding of research efforts into an effective taggant program. But we kind of know they’d never do that, don’t we? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/265 "2013-04-22T02:01:10Z")
Maybe they don’t need to add anything, maybe they simply need to closely examine what it already is. Keep samples as the gunpowder is made, analyse to the extent feasible the trace elements in the sample. When the same analysis is applied to a crime scene sample, check to see which sample most closely matches. Then, you have a good idea when it was made. And by whom. Naturally, the manufacturer knows what was sold to whom, and when. Follow the trail. I’ve heard the tribal elders speak of this thing, they call it a “database”. ---
**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 22, 2013, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/266 "2013-04-22T02:48:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Excuse me, but as I clearly said above: > > This is at least the third time you have to refute this claim by demanding I show evidence that the NRA “supported or approved any further research on the issue.” > > THAT IS NOT MY CLAIM. I say they have neither supported or discouraged any further research in the area of gunpowder taggants since 1999. > > Do you agree? No, because if if they have \*\*not \*\*discouraged research that would be easy to show. Lets see the evidence. > [@Bricker](#): > > I am not interested in any other reasons you have to dislike the NRA. Whether they are generally anti-science, whether they hang their toilet paper over or under the roll, and whether they like Kirk or Picard better are all fascinating but non-responsive to the very simple factual claim above. > > Do you agree that the NRA has neither supported or discouraged any further research in the area of gunpowder taggants since 1999? No, because as it was pointed before they use their power to make their tools in congress to discourage that research. ---
**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 22, 2013, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/267 "2013-04-22T02:54:04Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > You can fund a study or you can ask someone else to fund a study. The object is to find a taggant system that isn’t unsafe and isn’t easily defeated. You could ask the NRA for permission to run a study but nobody will know what you’re talking about. You should stop being so obtuse, once again the permission is political in nature, and in the end it is what the lawmakers fund or allow to be deployed what counts, I have to say that one point you entirely miss is that the NRA should never had been part of approving or disapproving of that research, but they were and the evidence so far is that they only continue to tell their people in congress to ignore the progress of science and just keep looking back at what they found 15 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/268 "2013-04-22T03:41:31Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > They were opposed in 1999, yes? So, absent any evidence of a change of mind, aren’t we reasonable to presume they still are? “Opposed” to taggants? Sure. Opposed to research? No evidence of that. And the link offered up by the OP claims: > [@](#): > > Explosives manufacturers are required to place tracing elements known as identification taggants only in plastic explosives but not in gunpowder, thanks to lobbying efforts by the NRA and large gun manufacturing groups. But there were no lobbying efforts after 1999 to either shut down research or exclude gunpowder from taggants. So unless the NRA is so almighty powerful that all they have to do is express is preference in 1999 and, like a “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?” moment, the echo of that request shuts down a decade of any contrary opinions…or you are full of shit. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/269 "2013-04-22T03:49:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No, because if if they have \*\*not \*\*discouraged research that would be easy to show. Lets see the evidence. Did you just ask me to show you the evidence that the NRA has NOT discouraged research? Ok. My cite is The Internet. A careful search of The Internet will reveal that there are no news stories or other references about the NRA discouraging research into gunpowder taggants after 1999. Therefore we know that they did not. > [@](#): > > No, because as it was pointed before they use their power to make their tools in congress to discourage that research. You keep claiming this is true, but when asked for a cite, you provide a cite to the NRA discouraging OTHER research. Note that such cites are plentiful. But when asked to find a cite showing the NRA discouraged research into gunpowder taggants after 1999, you cannot. Because it didn’t happen. How about being a fair scientist here and admitting this truth? ---
**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 22, 2013, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/270 "2013-04-22T04:01:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Did you just ask me to show you the evidence that the NRA has NOT discouraged research? > > Ok. My cite is The Internet. > > A careful search of The Internet will reveal that there are no news stories or other references about the NRA discouraging research into gunpowder taggants after 1999. > > Therefore we know that they did not. Nope, I’m requesting the positive not the negative, what I was requesting was evidence that they did any encouraging at all to tell the politicians to look up to the new advances. Something that was implied on what they reported since the research of 1999,. > [@Bricker](#): > > You keep claiming this is true, but when asked for a cite, you provide a cite to the NRA discouraging OTHER research. Note that such cites are plentiful. But when asked to find a cite showing the NRA discouraged research into gunpowder taggants after 1999, you cannot. Because it didn’t happen. > > How about being a fair scientist here and admitting this truth? Piffle, as it was noticed you misrepresented what I requested, it should be easy to find evidence that they do encourage research on the new advances regarding this, failing to find a cite makes us fall to the default position based on the recent past and what the NRA is doing elsewhere it is just reasonable to realize that \*\*nothing \*\*has come from the NRA to encourage investigations towards the deployment of the new technology. Of course I think that it would be easier for a member of the NRA to inquire if they are indeed looking at the new research and not stuck in the 90s as the default position. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/271 "2013-04-22T04:40:09Z")
> [@](#): > > …You keep claiming this is true, but when asked for a cite, you provide a cite to the NRA discouraging OTHER research. Note that such cites are plentiful. But when asked to find a cite showing the NRA discouraged research into gunpowder taggants after 1999, you cannot. Because it didn’t happen… So, if I take your meaning…the NRA _did_ oppose taggants in 1999. And even though they have maintained a consistent position of reacting to _any_ effort at research on _any_ of the topics associated with firearms by shrieking and tearing their hair… If we cannot show you irrefutable evidence that they _specifically_ interfered against taggants after 1999, then despite all the other ignorance mongering they have indulged in, on this _specific_ charge, they must be held innocent, and therefore you win. I think it would be kindness for you to concede,\*\* Giggles\*\*. He needs this one awful bad. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/272 "2013-04-22T05:43:46Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You should stop being so obtuse, once again the permission is political in nature, and in the end it is what the lawmakers fund or allow to be deployed what counts, I have to say that one point you entirely miss is that **the NRA should never had been part of approving or disapproving** of that research, but they were and the evidence so far is that they only continue to tell their people in congress to ignore the progress of science and just keep looking back at what they found 15 years ago. The NRA has experts that understand black powder and it’s uses. It makes sense that their experts would also be allowed input on any government firearms/black powder study. Unless you’re trying to stack the odds in favor of your personal agenda, that is. You can still fund as many studies as you would like. Nobody is stopping you. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention chose to consider firearm use to be a disease. Do you believe firearm use is a disease? Do you experience swelling, increased temperature, and shaking when you handle your pistol? Congress hasn’t authorized the CDC to spend taxpayer’s money to study a NON-disease. You just want to blame the NRA for everything. It doesn’t matter to you if taggants make black powder unstable or unsafe. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/273 "2013-04-22T05:54:39Z")
Does it not seem odd to anyone that there is only one country in the entire world that uses taggants? Seems like not using them is the overwhelming default position, and that one needn’t imagine some nefarious workings of the NRA to prevent them from being used here. ---
**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 22, 2013, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/274 "2013-04-22T08:12:09Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Does it not seem odd to anyone that there is only one country in the entire world that uses taggants? Seems like not using them is the overwhelming default position, and that one needn’t imagine some nefarious workings of the NRA to prevent them from being used here. Accurate if one looks only at identification taggants, but detection taggants are used worldwide on plastic explosives. > **[Taggant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taggant)** > > A taggant is any chemical or physical marker added to materials to allow various forms of testing or detection. Physical taggants can take many different forms but are typically microscopic in size, included at low levels, and simple to detect. They can be utilized to differentiate authentic product from counterfeits, provide identifying information for traceability purposes (e.g. lot number, company name), determine mixing homogeneity and cross-contamination, and to detect dilution of pr An RF... > [@](#): > > Concentrating in The inclusion of detection taggants in explosives is mandatory in some countries. Following the bombing of PanAm 103 over Scotland, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) was instrumental in effecting a world wide requirement for placing a detection taggant in plastic bonded explosives. ---
**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 22, 2013, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/275 "2013-04-22T08:19:42Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > The NRA has experts that understand black powder and it’s uses. Oh like the NRA experts on the lead on bullets that were found to be clueless by the scientists on the field? So yes, there was another reason I brought that example of the lead in bullets, once again, show me the latest talking points from the NRA where they finally accept the evidence that points to the need to not use lead ammo at least in hunting. Otherwise one has to take their scientific dictates elsewhere with a monumental grain of salt. ---
**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 22, 2013, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/276 "2013-04-22T12:59:49Z")
Again, big difference between high explosives that even when used commercially require significant expertise and safety procedures to use and which are very dangerous, and gunpowder which is sold widely and is not a high explosive and is rarely used to build bombs. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/277 "2013-04-22T13:04:22Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, I’m requesting the positive not the negative, what I was requesting was evidence that they did any encouraging at all to tell the politicians to look up to the new advances. Something that was implied on what they reported since the research of 1999,. But I am not claiming they did any encouraging at all. AGAIN, for the fourth time: > [@Bricker](#): > > I say they have neither supported or discouraged any further research in the area of gunpowder taggants since 1999. Why are you asking me to provide proof that they “did any encouraging at all?” I am clearly and unambiguously claiming they did no encouraging and no discouraging. Do you agree? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/278 "2013-04-22T13:06:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Accurate if one looks only at identification taggants, but detection taggants are used worldwide on plastic explosives. > > [Taggant - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taggant) And the NRA does not have the slightest complaint with taggants used in plastic explosives. Or dynamite, either. Just with gunpowder. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/279 "2013-04-22T17:23:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Oh like the NRA experts on the lead on bullets that were found to be clueless by the scientists on the field? > > So yes, there was another reason I brought that example of the lead in bullets, once again, show me the latest talking points from the NRA where they finally accept the evidence that points to the need to not use lead ammo at least in hunting. Otherwise one has to take their scientific dictates elsewhere with a monumental grain of salt. Are you done talking about taggants? It’s obvious that you don’t like the NRA. You even reject the idea of using experts hired by the NRA to review the taggant system(s) that were being studied simply because they were hired by the NRA. :rolleyes: Nobody is stopping you from studying or manufacturing taggants for black powder but you should be aware that your taggants will be studied and tested by others BEFORE they will be sold to manufactures or end users. Will your taggants prove to be safe? Stable? Difficult to remove? A joke? ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031/280 "2013-04-22T19:25:51Z")
> [@WarmNPrickly](#): > > This isn’t about creating a single thread of flawless evidence going back to a single killer. It’s about connecting pieces and putting together a story that’s corroborated by every other bit of evidence they have. The bombers had cell phones. Those cell phones have been traced all over. Did somebody buy gun powder consistent with a taggant when their cell phones were in the area? Did any security cameras get pictures of this and who were they with at the time? It could help locate accomplices and possibly prevent future attacks. I was curious about the assertion that tagging blackpowder could prevent another bombing attack. Do you anticipate that gunpowder sales will be tracked by law enforcement in near-real time, or that buyers must undergo a background check & waiting period? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-reason-to-pit-the-nra-no-taggants-in-gunpowder/656031.md?page=15)