We, or at least some of us, have been talking about gunpowder, not necessarily guns or even ammo specifically. Pavlov didn’t ring that bell, you just thought you heard it anyway.
On your other question, your premise is that taggants can be easily removed, and nothing anybody else can say can enlighten you about that, either.
You accuse rednecks of ignorance, while in the very same post, proclaim your own. And appear to be quite proud of it. Almost as if you expect to be taken seriously because of that ignorance rather than in spite of it.
Why yes, some drooling morons did indeed make those arguments.
Shoulder thing that goes up. Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy. Arguing in 2007 to renew the AWB. A bill that she introduced.
Number of magazines will decrease as bullets are used up. Congresswoman Diana DeGette, participating in a public forum on gun control hosted by the Denver Post.
I expect people taking the lead on positions I support to actually know what they’re talking about. Maybe you hold a different viewpoint. Not really my problem.
Looks like that’s the train you’ve tied yourself to. Enjoy the ride!
Well, no, that’s not really your problem. At least not in this context. Your problem in this context is that your argument skills bite. Your are lucky today, here at **Elucidator **Labs, this is outreach day. We’re here to help.
Suppose I were arguing for the legalization of marijuana. There are any number of sound and sensible arguments for that position. I support those arguments, because they are sound and sensible. With me so far? I’ll give you a second…
OK, so if someone were to argue that we need to legalize because pot leads to heroin, and the opium growers need our support, that would be a stupid argument on two fronts: one, because its not true, and two, because even if it were true, it would still be stupid.
No matter what position of presumed “leadership” occupied by the speaker, the argument is indefensible, and I wouldn’t do it. Similarly, someone who points out those arguments as if they were my own and I am obliged to defend them is…well, you.
How is it that you can type, but can’t read?
elucidator: I think you are missing the fact that your post #407 mocked the idea that gun control advocates are, at least in part, pushing certain policies that are rooted in ignorance of firearms. “What does one need to know other than point and shoot?”
That was your argument, so it I’m not sure why you are reacting the way you are when posters point out that one does indeed need to know something significantly more than “point and shoot” when setting policy.
I can’t fix a car. My opinion on traffic laws is thereby invalid? No, because in order to form an opinion on how cars should be legally operated it is only important that you understand their function. My opinion about traffic laws and such isn’t more valid or less depending on how much I know about muffler bearings and torsion valves.
That’s the stupid argument. The more telling argument is the legal one, that one must define precisely what is to be legal and what is not, so that a reasonable person can know what he can and cannot do. Now there, my lack of legal expertise matched with gun expertise matters, I would not insist that I am the guy to write the laws. But neither am I willing to accept the premise that such law writing cannot be done, therefore we should just quit. The Brady people have lawyers on staff, I hadn’t heard that they had given up in despair.
Now, for that argument, yes, indeed, my opinion would carry more weight if I had such dual expertise. Which is why I have so little to say about how those laws should be worded. I am willing to listen to suggestions, of course, but not willing to be stymied merely by the difficulty. It will be difficult, that is not the same as saying it can’t be done, and has nothing whatever to do with the question of whether it should be done.
There is no need for an analogy. It’s a simple fact that if you are going to ban certain guns, or gun features, then you need to know more than “point and shoot” as evidenced by some of the sillier aspects of the AWB which banned “scary looking features” rather than “actual, dangerous features”.
But if you insist on an analogy: if you want to draft or support legislation geared towards increasing car safety, you need to know more than “step on the accelerator and go”. Otherwise, you may end up banning certain styles of seat covers and steering wheels rather than bumper and air bag design.
Then i shall avail myself of the galactic compendium of things automotive: the Tappet Brothers, Tom and Ray. Expertise is available. If the question is limits on blood alcohol for impaired driving, I need not be silent because I don’t know anything about the doohickey or the thingamabob. Similarly, if someone is rash enough to disagree with me on the subject and could build a VW bus with scrap metal and a pair of pliers, his opinion and mine are on an equal footing for the issue at hand.
I am well aware that laws regulating firearms are likely to be difficult and exasperating to write correctly. Doesn’t mean it can’t be done, and sure doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
Now, if it turns out that is impossible, reasonable regulation cannot be framed without unacceptable violence to rights…so be it. I’ll say “Shit!” and start getting over it. Welcome to Deadwood.
Yep, can’t disagree with any of that. Reasonable gun control is not rocket science, even if it might be an arms race, pun intended, between the legislators and the gun manufacturers. Since we’re on car analogies, think radar detectors.
I was just pointing out that your post #407 is what started this bit of a digression, and why several people here interpreted it as they did.
Well, I think Martin Hyde started it, and he’s the one shouldn’t get a Happy Meal!
Here is a counter-analogy of how uninformed and even cheerfully willfully ignorant debaters on gun control issues appear. This is not intended to be a personal criticism of you.
~
Mary Sue is a physician and not exactly dumb, but she can’t fix a car nor knows how an internal combustion engine works. A law is proposed which proposes to ban A/F ratios less than 15:1 under ANY circumstances due to the tremendous amount of unburned hydrocarbons that they produce (even overwhelming catalysts sometimes), which causes smog and hurts the tiny lungs of children and puppies, not to mention adults. Mary Sue thinks that sounds like a good idea - everyone wants a cleaner environment, right?
Automobile enthusiasts and engineers howl, and say “better hope that the temperature never drops below 50 F, or you’ll never start your car!” That doesn’t make sense to Mary Sue - how does what temperature it is effect this A/F thingamabob? It sounds like the usual whining those automobile enthusiasts did when they protested a 55 mph speed limit or airbags.
Ample opportunity exists for Mary Sue to ask “why exactly is this so important?” it’s explained to her that engines require much lower A/F ratios when they are cold in order to start or warm up properly - in the old days this was done via a choke, which choked off air to the engine so there was more gasoline than normal per every stroke of the engine.
Mary Sue thinks that might be true, but isn’t sure - after all, these were the same people who said we shouldn’t have airbags - and decides the whole thing about A/F ratios is some overblown concern about a minor thing, and surely there’s lots of easy workarounds. After all, can’t you just take public transport? Mary Sue does; she lives in the downtown, and doesn’t even own a car, nor understands why anyone would. Can’t you ride a bike? Can’t someone just make gasoline burn differently? Can’t you just get one of those electric cars? Why does anyone NEED a car engine that requires such a low A/F ratio? Besides, Congresspeople have to be smart or else they can’t get elected, and sometimes they do good work, and Mary Sue’s Party of choice is all behind this effort, so she feels she should be too.
The automobile enthusiasts and engineers then throw up all these “roadblocks” and “issues” which just sound like the same old arguments. They “dig in their heels” and resist “common-sense solutions” which just lead to more children coughing. They say it will cost too much for them to all buy electric cars, and they say things are different in the country where there’s no public transport. And ride your bike when it’s 0 F outside? Mary Sue thinks this is all just more whining from people who don’t really want to solve this national crisis of low A/F ratios. After all, on the news the other day someone quoted a study from somewhere she can’t remember which claimed as many as 1.3 children a YEAR die from low A/F ratios! How can you put a price on the life of a SINGLE child, let alone 1.3?! Mary Sue is horrified and disgusted at the disregard for human life shown by those automobile enthusiasts and engineers, who are probably all in the Other political party anyhow…you know, that one that hates blacks and lesbians and flossing?
After a while she tunes them out, and hopes that someone in Washington will protect us from all those people running around with A/F ratios that are too low. Until that day, she starts to eye cars and their owners more fearfully, aware now that there are all these wild-eyed people out starting their car in sub-zero temperatures, not giving a shit about the children and puppies. And that impacts the whole. Damn. Planet.
~
And this is how some otherwise intelligent people in gun control debates appear.
Lest we forget, the number of bombing deaths in the country every year is a handful, the number of gun deaths in the country every year (already even subtracted out the suicides for you) is around ten thousand. Draw your own conclusions about what our priorities should be.
Una, I know just the people you are talking about! Following your example of discretion and decorum, I won’t name them either.
But we can hope that they take your lesson to heart, and firmly revolve to reform their ways.
“Resolve” Resolve to reform their waves. Shit. Say goodnight, Gracie…
Of course I don’t expect you to defend the statements.
On the other hand, I don’t believe it unreasonable to expect the (collective) you to defend having decided they were the best qualified to champion your cause against the representatives the opposition has chosen.
If your positions were reversed so you were the representative and Carolyn and Diana were just anonymous users on a message board you could just handwave them away as uneducated but well-meaning ‘drooling morons’. But as representatives are expected to be, well, representative of the people that elected them to office, someone’s got some splainin to do.
While you you may or may not have been one people voting for them, several thousands of your cohorts did, so you’re stuck with them as a very visible and embarrassing component of your arguments. Far more visible that you yourself are here and now. Not so easily dismissed.
So, you get Wayne LaPierre and all those chubby middleage bozos running around in the woods playing Rambo and Red Dawn? Cool. Oh, Louis Gomert, too, wouldn’t want you go without Goober.
You drive a hard bargain, podnuh. I’d best agree before you outsmart me any more.
Sure. I’ll take two dozen Wayne LaPierre’s if you’ll take on another dozen Diana DeGette’s. He’s actually informed about the issue he supports. The current round of knee-jerk feel-good ultimately-ineffective gun control legislation did go down in flames if you hadn’t noticed.
Chubby middleage bozos running around in the woods playing Rambo and Red Dawn. Cite?
Louis Gomert? Point. Still a better option than Carolyn McCarthy.
Fucking finally. An answer, even if it wasn’t for me. You want taggants in all blackpowder. Good.
I don’t own a gun. I’ve never fired a gun. I’ve never held a gun. I don’t think I’ve even seen a gun unless it was behind protective glass at a museum. I’d support mandatory backgroud checks for all gun purchases, but also think that gun “bans” based on some trivial characteristics of a gun are pointless. You’ll never eliminate tragedy, and the gun genie ain’t going back into the bottle. Do the best you can.
Now, I can’t vote on these things as I am not a citizen (although I pay taxes - taxation without representation… that used to be a big deal here a while ago. 
). But what I am is anti-stupidity. Adding taggants to blackpowder in order to prevent or held solve crime is stupid. The fact that the NRA are opposed to it is only a lucky coincident for them.
There would be a finite supply of unique taggants. They aren’t like serial numbers where you can just keep counting up. So the batch sizes that a taggant would be applied to would be huge. That raw material is sent to the ultimate destination for manufacture into bullet casings, fireworks, whatever. Even if you had a way to have an unlimited number of taggants, how are you going to dictate the lot size?
So, given the large number of products that would have to be made out of each lot size, once you identify the taggants and trace it back to a production run and where it was sent and used, the best you are going to get is “well, product run 1,475,122 was sent to these 30 places and the end results of that was shipped to somewhere in the Northeast”. Useless information that couldn’t have be gleaned anyways from the fact that the bombing was in Boston and the materials would probably been sourced locally.
There a many other logistical issues with adding taggants to blackpowder would be problematic. It just wouldn’t be worth it, and the downstream implications would be too cost prohibitive.
I’m all for reducing killings wherever possible. And if you were to propose something that would be effective, I’d be right there beside you supporting it. But crazy is crazy. Taggants to blackpowder is not going to stop, prevent, or solve that.
So what *do *you have for us except snark and denial and obstruction and dismissal? Your statement that you do, in fact, wish to reduce killings is unsupported, in fact the evidence here suggests the contrary.
Congratulations on finally finding someone read this thread to you, even if you’re still having comprehension problems.
Mellow greetings, citizen. What… seems to be your boggle?
You know, I had to go to the SDMB Picture Gallery to see if you are actually an adult. I was a little shocked to see that you are.
Taggants to blackpowder is a stupid idea. So don’t do it. If you support it, you are stupid. End of story.
It’s funny. I’m pretty sure that you support universal health care. And one of the arguments you use is “well, all other countries do it. We should too”. No other country (aside from the Swiss apparently) add taggants to blackpowder. Now you want to be unique?