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?
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.
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?
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”.
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.
“Opposed” to taggants? Sure. Opposed to research? No evidence of that. And the link offered up by the OP claims:
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.
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.
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?
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,.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?