Bullshit. Absolutely untrue.
I have read the history of what the NRA has done, and I can not find what you are claiming here, the default position has been to oppose such programs, but the worst IMHO is that the NRA has not allowed any progress in this and other research fronts.
Of course, one can claim that when research is not done that could tell us if progress with the science was made.
However, a search I made on a previous discussion points to technology like nano-tech as a new angle that makes this more possible and affordable.
Now if some members could tell the NRA head honchos to bug off in their opposition to research and to support it…
the NRA is a non-governmental organization. how can they “not allow” things to happen?
:rolleyes: it took a couple of days for the suspects to be identified, and little more than that for the remaining surviving one to be apprehended. please explain to me how taggants would have sped that up. And make this good.
You did not read the articles huh? Are you an ignorant American that is not aware how government grants and funding can be affected by politics?
Straw man, and that is your rotten stupid argument, the idea now is to make the life of the copy cats and future terrorists harder.
I have to add that it was a moot point in this case only because (AFAIK) a hero was there to save one of the victims, that victim of the bombing recuperated enough to id the bomber and the rest was then easy. But that IMHO points to how we may be with no good clues if the witness had died, then I think we would be still guessing right now.
The reality is that technology has improved so much that it would be possible that we could had scanner tools on the field that would id very quickly the source of the explosives, that is if science and technology had been allowed to continue to be funded in this field.
As it is, "Little research since the 1999 study has been undertaken on creating taggants that could assist authorities with gunpowder-based bombs like those use in the Boston Marathon bombing. " What you need to explain here is why the NRA does not look to partner for more research.
And it has to be notorious why more research was not done as soon the NRA decided not to continue with it. So, can **you **make a good explanation for the NRA’s reprehensible behavior on this subject?
I feel like this thread just got reset because GIGObuster probably hasn’t read the rest of it before posting. But just because taggants might help solve a small number of crimes doesn’t justify mandating them. Especially when money could be spent on far more effective tools like more public CCTV cameras.
Most liberals would never just rubber stamp every request from law enforcement regardless of utility and cost concerns. But when a low utility relative to cost program is proposed that tangentially brushes up against something sorta involving guns and the NRA the left is all over it.
wow, your first response is to insult my intelligence. I have no reason to interact with you further.
Has a commodity chemical (mixture, in this case) ever been tracked to the degree suggested by the OP? If we were going to attempt to try, is gunpowder even the place to start? And why now? This Boston incident was so inconsequential. Why not target real dangers?
Removing taggants is one thing. A better way to throw off the investigators is to add additional in order to change to identifier. You may stumble on an identifying mixture that if linked to place or time you have never been could exonerate you or be used in your defense.
I have no idea how taggants work but if my life was solely focused on blowing people up I and knew they were in there I would mess with them in some way.
You know, Hitler had them put taggants into the German gunpowder, part of his plan. Proved to be a mistake when he invaded Russia, because the Russians had good lab work and knew within a couple of days it was the Germans.
Damn right you are, not much intelligence. 
You are at least intelligent enough to notice, but not smart enough to realize this is the pit.
But of course, that works only by ignoring that many others do have a beef with them too, unless you are in favor of big brother watching us.
Of course, I brought the cites showing how reprehensible they are in this case, do you have an explanation why they did that?
And it would be easy. Just take a little road trip, visit a few different states, and pick up black powder at several different locations in each state. Pay with cash. Mix all the different powders together, than wait a few months before building your first bomb. That will be long enough to insure the store clerks’ memories will have faded and any videotapes of the sales transactions will have been erased. And when the police try to use taggants to trace the origins of your bomb, they’ll find the powder traces back to 20 different stores in six different states. What a fine clue that will be for the investigators!
You don’t need taggants to catch stupid bombers, and they are easily defeated by smart ones. So why bother with them? Why not put the money into more effective approaches?
Big Brother can watch me all he likes when I’m out in public, so long as he sticks to using an ordinary camera lens that only sees what a human eye can see (no infrared or X-ray vision). There is no right to privacy in a public place -that’s settled law. Anyone is free to look at you and to photograph you.
CCTV cameras in public places are less intrusive than the government searching store records to discover what individual citizens have been legally purchasing, which is what any useful taggant program would require.
The Columbine bombers used 20lb propane tanks as bombs. The Aurora bomber used gasoline to boobytrap his apartment. If the Boston marathon bombers didn’t have black powder, they would have found some other chemical mixture to maim and kill people.
Why do you expect the NRA to research taggants? Are you under the impression that the NRA is the only group that could accomplish such a task? That’s absurd. What’s preventing you from doing the research? Or a large chemical corporation? Is it because the taggants are so easy to remove and no one will pay for a system that is so easy to defeat?
The overhead view of the warm body in the boat that led to the capture of suspect #2 was probably done with a type of FLIR camera. I’m assuming that the use of infrared has been OK’d by the courts.
Got the whole “probable cause” thingy pretty well nailed down.
I grant you the first point, but your second one is referring to what is **also **happening already, when authorities investigate a crime they can get access to store records.
The point is that while one can identify a scooter by the serial numbers, once a crime like a terrorist getting rid of witnesses with a bomb takes place, the position shows by the NRA is **not **helping deal with a crime.
Now scoot.
They did so before, and it is clear that for this issue researchers have to play nice with the politicians in the pockets of the NRA.
Of course it is, good thing I did not say that, only you did silly straw man one.
Nothing indeed prevents it, and it is clear that you are an ignorant of where research is going, in my previous discussion I found out that international corporations do tag fuels to identify who may be stealing the stuff, and recent developments are going to the molecular level, good luck removing those taggants.
http://umaine.edu/lasst/home/spotlight/traceable-bombs/
BTW I was aware of those cites very early, I just wanted to see how far guys like you would continue to pretend that are aware of what is going on. Your references to removal (and it implies an easy mechanical system to do so for microchips or other microscopic items) do point to being stuck in the 90’s regarding this issue, and it remains a travesty that a lot of those advances are being delayed by the inaction requested by the NRA.
Actually it is, as the perpetrators have to leave more tracks. your scenario actually leaves more trails in the current example, the kids would had indeed put a bigger target on them as then the FBI would had wondered why suddenly the ones that they had some suspicion are suddenly shopping around.
Once again, we got lucky on the ID of the bombers as the reports I have seen. And no, I do not think that the new taggants are so easy to defeat. And as a guy that is already on record of supporting the second amendment I have to say it is already insulting to one’s intelligence to suggest that the NRA will also support more effective approaches, so far what I see is just the approach of preventing any sensible approach like opposing to the improvements on background checks.