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.
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.
Where did you cite what the NRA is doing? I have read your quotes, and in post 202 you offered the following quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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!
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.
“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.
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.
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.
it is clear to me that the NRA is stuck in the 90’s.