No, but they’re concerned that this may limit the availability of commercial black powder.
Grab them. Get the terminology right.
Their God-given right to a hobby outweighs your right to keep your limbs attached.
And if they commit a crime using the muzzle-loaded firearms, this information could potentially be used to identify them.
And the problem is??
You mean, commercial black powder without taggants?
Aaaawwwww.
so what was used in Boston? black powder, or smokeless powder? smokeless powder isn’t an explosive; it actually burns rather slowly when unconfined. it’s the fact that it’s confined by the chamber/barrel/bullet that makes it a decent propellant. Adding “taggants” to smokeless powder would alter the burn rates of the propellant meaning all of the loading data out there would have to be revised (or the powders themselves reformulated) all for something rarely used.
I’ve never bought black powder or any of its replacements, but I’ve seen jars of it out on the shelf at Gander Mountain. I don’t know if purchases of black powder or Pyrodex are logged; if not then I question whether taggants would help solve this either.
is this a problem which needs solving?
Jackbooted thug bureaucrats, yes. 
You’re the one who’s talking about guns. This thread’s about bombs.
And yeah, doing a little bit of risk reduction is better than doing none at all. I’d have thought this would be obvious, but apparently in the Through-The-Looking-Glass mind of Junior Scalia here, it’s the other way around: doing nothing is better than accomplishing a little bit of good.
you’ve not demonstrated that
-
taggants are safe when added to black powder/smokeless powder and used in a firearm, nor
-
that tagging of black powder/smokeless powder will do anything.
High explosives are tagged because a) their job is to simply explode, and b) their manufacture is tightly regulated and their sale is monitored. As I said, I can buy cans/jars of black powder and smokeless powder off the shelf. Is it really useful to be able to tell that someone used e.g. Pyrodex to make an explosive device when Pyrodex is available damn near anywhere?
As someone who has never heard of taggants before this thread, let me say that both sides are coming across as total twats in this thread. I haven’t seen even the roughest estimate on how much these taggants would cost to implement, which makes it completely impossible for me to judge whether the (marginal) increase in public safety justifies the expense.
Driving to work this morning, I noticed (with some surprise) that there were some vehicles which were clearly driving *above *the speed limit! Clearly, since traffic laws can’t stop *everyone *from speeding, we should just get rid of the damned things.
Seems kind of dismissive; this isn’t the same exercise as using taggants in something like Semtex. Potassium nitrate is used in most of its primary applications in conjunction with the food supply, and you’d have to make sure that the taggants would be safe to consume, don’t mess up crops, don’t change the characteristics of the final compounds, etc…
That sounds like it could be quite expensive just to do that, much less engineer thousands of variants that would be necessary to actually effectively tag the huge quantities of the stuff that are used. Again, this isn’t a relatively small volume explosive, but a huge volume industrial chemical.
I’ve honestly never heard of taggants before but I would basically think since they most likely would serve little preventive value and only minor investigative value I’d be in favor of them as long as the costs were very low.
Well, the bigger issue is whether it would do any good. Gunpwder is made in massive quantities; in order to be tagged usefully, exacting records must be kept of all batches everywhere (some of which could be quite small and localized), and these batches need to be usefully connected to possible purchasers. This is quite possible and practical with high explosives (though I have doubts about its usefulness). But with gunpwder, a large batch could be used for millions of bullets and eventual end sources. Possible purchaser records would be scattered over many states and regions and thousands of purchasers distributed over hundreds of stores. Some of these won’t have internet connections; others won’t use them.
More to the point, even if there is some benefit to law enforcement, it’s only after the fact. It does little or no good before an attack, and involves tracking the habits and preferences of potentially millions of citizens.
Because of this, I think an argument for using them needs to show several things:
(A) That gunpwder can be practically tagged.
(B) That they can practically be connected to individual purchasers.
(B) That it can reasonably done without infringing on Constitutional liberties
(C) That there is a benefit to law enforcement (as gunpowder-based explosive terrorism doesn’t seem, as far as I know, very common).
(D) That this benefit is not unique to a specific case.
At that point, and not before, can any cost/benefit arguement be made.
Diversionary tactics: when the conversation doesn’t go your way, change the subject.
Chemical practicality, as in (A), is obviously an issue (though not one addressed meaningfully in this thread); that’s true, and I’d like to see arguments. But I’m not convinced that points (B) through (D) would differ significantly when applied to gunpowder taggants as when applied to gun serial numbers, and AFAIK it’s quite illegal to sell a gun with the serial number filed off.
I saw a TV show years ago about a bombing case that was solved because the bomber stole a sizable quantity of dynamite from a construction site, and it contained taggants that led law enforcement back to him. The show’s postcript noted that the taggant program had been allowed to elapse (no mention made of any NRA lobbying), which struck me as stupid and short-sighted.
I’m not sure how much utility there’d be in tagging all gunpowder made in the country, but it seems like a no-brainer to tag various classes of explosives that have no legitimate private civilian use outside of construction/demolition etc.
I also doubt criminals would be eager to make their own gunpowder/explosives (given what they can obtain legally or illegally), and that amateurish attempts to do so would results in either 1) distinctive, traceable formulations, or 2) the bomber blowing him/herself up, which might well be a good thing (apart from collateral damage).
last I paid attention to this, the NRA has never taken a position on tagging of high explosives. gunpowder is not a high explosive.
Maybe, but it has nothing to do with the NRA. Dynamite =/= gunpowder.
You’re stupid.
That’s literally the problem. This is not an insult I use all that frequently here, but it fits perfectly: you’re ignorant of the factual issues related to the argument, but perfectly willing to opine all the same, secure in your invincible ignorance. Now, ignorance alone is not the same as stupidity, but ignorance shielded by a willingness to opine at length rather than learn… is.
There is are a number of problems associated with mandated addition of taggants to black powder – the burn rate of the powder, for one. But more to the point, how much crime do you imagine is committed with muzzle loaded weapons? How many drive-by shootings, for instance, do you imagine happen with a gangsta muzzle-loader?
You have no clue what you’re talking about. None. But you’re willing to blab at length about your opinion on the issue.
just like most people who’ve let Hollywood teach them all they know about guns.
According to wikipedia, there is only one country in the world, Switzerland, which requires taggants in explosives. Is this true? If so, it would seem that the NRA is not the issue here.