How is the NRA preventing you from conducting your own taggant research?
Who is currently being stopped from conducting taggant research?
Who is currently being stopped from conducting taggant research by the NRA?
History shows that many organizations, including the NRA, support many members of Congress with contributions. That’s not exactly news.
I didn’t say it was easy but it could be profitable. No one is preventing you from conducting taggant research. However, if your taggant system can be easily defeated, you won’t make a profit or break even.
Thanks for the info.
Naive as always. The answer is the same for many vaccines, with enough government support they remain available for all. Remove the support, only a few would remain as private corporations do not see much of a profit on them.
Good thing the NRA doesn’t know about the NSF research.
Congress, generally, doesn’t interfere with individual grants. When they do, it’s a big to-do. I’ve seen zero inference in the existing taggant development.
Congress does, however, insinuate themselves into the funding process. As they did at the behest of the NRA in regards to funding research involving firearms injury and mortality at the CDC and NIH.
Let’s not pretend that we’re in the realm of total fantasy here.
Thread start: “The NRA is terrible for opposing taggants in gunpowder.”
Quickly demonstrated: No one can elucidate any real argument for putting taggants in gunpowder nor is anyone even going to claim gunpowder bombs represent a significant crime problem.
Result: Endless pages about whether or not the NRA has suppressed, actively or “politically” taggant research, while totally ignoring the fact taggants would solve few if any crimes and prevent few if any crimes and the program would potentially cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
I said it happens. But the piddling $2.6 million taken away from NCIPC for statistical “research” has fuck all to do with the development and use of new technology, which thus far appears to be going strong.
Asserted =/= demonstrated. A common tactic in defending an indefensible position.
None that you haven’t desperately handwaved away, no. But that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.
I love it! Not only do you put quote marks around research, but you attempt to undermine it by labeling it “statistical.”
Conservatives are not only hostile to science, they are profoundly ignorant about it as well. Well, perhaps I overgeneralize. There may be a few who are not morons on the subject, but I predict they won’t show up here to help out their addled colleague.
And newly learned: the bombers obtained the explosive they used by buying lots of fireworks.
Which of course the NRA has not the slightest opposition to being loaded with taggants.
Expected liberal response: some variant of, “It doesn’t matter; the NRA is evil!”
The NRA is a creature of, and reports to, the *firearms *industry. Why would they give a damn about explosives or fireworks? Are you under the illusion that they act from some sort of principle other than money, or what they claim to be the 2nd Amendment?
Duh. You’re not helping your partisan cause here at all.
Who is the conservative? I don’t like guns or the NRA, but the arguments being presented in this thread are ludicrous. I keep wondering if some of the more active posters in this thread are secretly against gun control, and are just trying to make the other side look bad. Kind of like that guy who always shows up in the abortion threads railing about pro-lifers (which I am not) all secretly trying to harm women.
The NCIPC work was a bunch barely-funded number crunching. It was not creating anything new. The actual science and technology to permit the (poorly justified IMO) measures advocated by the OP is happening today. Happening with or without <$3 million in survey summaries defunded in the 90s. And I fully support this actual scientific research.
The work that they were doing was studying the prevalence and circumstances around injuries associated with firearms. What technology exactly did you want them to create?
As for numbers crunching, what exactly is your critique? Are you suggesting that they were not, or would not, have been involved in new data collect to try to answer their questions about how often and in what circumstances people are injured by firearms? Are you suggesting that it is not useful to know the epidemiology of a particular mechanism of injury, disease or mortality? You seem to be confusing R&D with other types of research.
One thing that these threads have clearly shown, beyond any doubt, is how desperately we do need this information regarding firearms injuries and deaths.
and watch those goalposts go zooming by. the OP of this very thread said:
“And so it’s impossible to track the gunpowder in the Boston Marathon bombs.”
I think that since it’s been revealed that they used fireworks to build their bombs, this entire thread is now moot.
I do not support Congress meddling in their funding. Hell, maybe their work would have been better quality had they had some real money to work with. However, their defunding is of little consequence. They weren’t getting much done to begin with, and the defunding has nothing to do with a tangible technological solution desired by the OP.
The OP wants technology, and feels the evil NRA and its lackeys in Congress are preventing that. But the government is funding taggant technology. CDC surveys don’t change that. They’re irrelevant. And I keep asking if there is interference in this pursuit of tangible results, but the answer seems to be no.
Btw, discussion of the CDC work may make an interesting GD thread. I never saw much value in it as implemented, but I’m betting we can find folks who feel very strongly one way or another.
Just so I’m clear - you want taggants put in all gunpowder, or only gunpowder used in the manufacture of bullets?
How is the NRA preventing you from conducting your own taggant research?
Who is currently being stopped from conducting taggant research?
Who is currently being stopped from conducting taggant research by the NRA?
How is the NRA preventing you from adding taggants to VACCINES???
Why aren’t you bemoaning the fireworks industry and Congress and China for not adding easy-to-remove taggants to pyrotechnics sold here?
Oh well, even after granting that there is some research going on, there goes a gun nut* that shows how nuts some of them are.
(It is notorious that the only example found for recent funded research was the one I brought to show how out of the current research the NRA is, once again, if there are no tax breaks or incentives from the government not much will change regarding the **use **of the research. But as noticed by others, in this bomber case, the issue is moot)
*Actually the unhinged door here is showing to be just a plain nut, just about the kind that indeed does discredit one side.