Skip to main content

View Diary: NRA's lobbying creates policies that hamper criminal investigations (187 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Non sequitur. (12+ / 0-)

    Mirandizing suspects makes certain everything is done by the book.  Making sure there is no evidence removes the book.

    I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

    by trumpeter on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:43:02 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  There are differences of opinion (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon

      as to when and how "the book" should be changed. There is only one country that requires taggants now. Is the NRA responsible for preventing legislation in all other countries, too?

      -7.25, -6.26

      We are men of action; lies do not become us.

      by ER Doc on Wed May 08, 2013 at 02:29:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As the US is the (3+ / 0-)

        armorer for much of the world, the NRA's influence is felt beyond our borders.

        I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

        by trumpeter on Wed May 08, 2013 at 02:49:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's laughable. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, ER Doc, andalusi, FrankRose

          The only round that is pretty much only made here in the usa is the .40sw

          Everything else is also manufactured in dozens and dozens of other countries.

          There are ammo manufacturing plants in foreign countries spinning up increased output in order to feed the market here in america. The nra has no say in whether they dilute their powder recipe with chaff.

          Taggants.... The government alone is purchasing more than 1 billion rounds. There is no possible way to add taggants to be as useful as what the unthinking public has imagined. They aren't like serial numbers, where if you reach the upper limit on the stamper you can just add another digit. There's a finite amount of space inside the brass casing and so when you run through all the possible combinations you are forced to start repeating what you've already done. And since ammunition can sit around for more than fifty years without any loss of function, once you start repeating combinations you have destroyed the very trait that was the original intent.

          Really, people are still digging up sealed spam cans of ammo from ww2 and the rounds fire like they just came off the assembly line.

          •  Once again, the refrain: this won't apply... (6+ / 0-)

   every case. People will find their way around it.

            You sound like that guy who won't put a burglar alarm in his house because the burglars will just find a way to cut off his power and break in anyway.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Thu May 09, 2013 at 03:35:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you want to go with a break-in metaphor... (0+ / 0-)

              Taggants in powder are like getting sticky strips of paper where the entire package has a pre-printed series of colors. You take the package and stick a strip to everything you own. If the cops come across a bunch of stolen stuff they look at the color code and track it back to you.

              The problem is, these strips of paper are sold nationwide and they are only so many millimeters in length, plus there is a limited color palette that is functionally fit to use in the color codes.

              All of which leads to the problems I already mentioned. Limited color palette means there will come a point where the number of unique color combinations has all been used up, but there are still more households untagged... So the maker will start doubling up on combinations, resulting in ROYGBIVROY being used by me in pa and who knows how many others in how many other places possibly far or right next door.

              Plus, taggants in powder will not necessarily remain at the scene in a manner that can be collected accurately enough for a correct identification. Sorta like the hypothetical color strips being exposed to the heat / cold / damp / dry / sun and degrading enough so that what was tagged with your strip is now pointing to a different person.

              Taggants are FUCKING STUPID. They are science FICTION, just like the ignorant way people have placed so much faith in ballistic fingerprinting when jamming a brass brush down the barrel for a minute scrapes away all those CSI special effects that made great entertainment but were almost as useful as directions on how to fly by flapping your arms.

              And you know what, MB? I wonder what the hell happened to you. You used to scrutinize things for feasibility and scalability. You should have noticed that the factors of limited materials plus powder batch size would reduce the number of unique 'tags' to an ineffective level, not to mention how cartridge longevity plus unreliable 'tag' collection at a scene would be plenty enough grounds for reasonable doubt and even mistaken identity to happen.

              How many more SWAT teams descending on the wrong house because the public swallowed some shiny special effect propaganda are you okay with?

              You should have thought this through, what has happened?

              •  You're dissing 20th Century technology ... (3+ / 0-)

                ... No surprise there given how little attention has been paid to creating unique tags for explosives.

                But isotopic tags avoid all the problems you raise because they don't depend on color combinations or 0.1mm taggants. See:

                Development of a Dual-Isotope Procedure for the Tagging and Identification of Manufactured Products: Application to Explosives

                These scientists don't think taggants are fucking stupid.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Thu May 09, 2013 at 06:42:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Next You Know (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber, FogCityJohn

                  We'll have handheld communicators like in Star Trek.  Ha--you and your science fiction.

                •  Even if they get the technology to work safely (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  happy camper, PavePusher

                  What would it actually tell us?  I think that most powder loaded in the U.S. is from foreign countries.  Powder is made in huge batches, then separated into drums and sold worldwide, wherever ammunition is loaded.  The drums arrive in the U.S. and are distributed to several companies, who then separate the drums into smaller cans and put their own labels on the cans.  Some of those cans are separated into even smaller cans and distributed to stores all over the U.S. for sale to shooters that reload their own.  Other cans go to any one or several ammunition manufacturers who load it into their cartridges which they then distribute under their own and different brand names all over the U.S.  All of this has the same taggant signature from the manufacturer(??) and how do you know who bought what ammunition where or who bought what can of powder where.  Don't even try to tell me that they would attempt to add a different taggant to each one of tens of thousands of cans of powder because that wouldn't be practical.  

                  Gunpowder for fireworks is even more convoluted.  Foreign manufacturer of the powder and foreign manufacturer of the fireworks, which is then shipped to many hundreds (probably thousands) of outlets in dozens of countries.  

                  And then, there is potassium nitrate fertilizer.  Tag all of that?  Tens of thousands of pounds are manufactured in a batch, bagged and shipped to agricultural suppliers and garden stores all over the U.S. where it is ultimately sold to thousands of farmers by the truckload or by the pallet and tens of thousands of individuals by the bag.

                  Dynamite and high explosives are used by fewer companies and in lesser quantities, so that is probably doable, but explosives are rarely used in a criminal enterprise so taggants may not be worth the trouble.  When you get into the tens of thousands of users tracing becomes impossible, anyway.

                •  Thanks for the cite, and lack of bile. (0+ / 0-)

                  I have been trying to wade through:


                  Really slow going.

                  “Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.”

                  by frenchy339 on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:35:40 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  The Proposal Was For Bulk Purchases of Powder (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber

            Not for tagging all black powder used in cartridges. So if bought black powder to load  you own ammo, that would contain taggants.  If  you bought cartridges at the store with powder in it, it wouldn't apply.

            I'm sure there have been proposals to include it in all black powder at some time in the fevered and hystrionic imaginations of gun fetishists, but the relevant issue here was for buying black powder in bulk.  

        •  I think the largest manufacturer (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ER Doc, theatre goon, FrankRose

          Of smokeless powder is ADI in Australia.

          There's a hell of a lot of it made in Finland as well.

          American reloading powder companies like Alliant and Hogdon don't actually make the powders they sell, they buy in bulk, blend, test and relabel product made by others.


          "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
          "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

          by Leftie Gunner on Wed May 08, 2013 at 04:17:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Read what I wrote about taggants above (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ER Doc, happy camper, PavePusher

        I don't see milspec ever approving the addition of taggants because of the reasons I gave.  

        •  Is it Mandatory (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

          for gun fetishists to know nothing about policy debates in the past?  

          I'm always baffled by the absolute ignorance of people so irrationally obsessed with an issue.  

          As MB points out above the tech has changed so we could actually tag black powder fairly easily now, but it was only the black powder sold as black powder that was at issue in the 1990s.  

          •  It is NOT BLACK POWDER we're discussing (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ban nock, happy camper, PavePusher

            You are showing your ignorance.  Smokeless powder is a very different animal (nitro cellulose base).  It is a completely different chemical.  There are dozens (probably hundreds) of smokeless powders, each developed with different explosive properties for different applications--different cartridges, different bullet weights, etc.  Before you post you should do some research so that you understand the difference.

            •  I think we can now see... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ban nock, happy camper, PavePusher

              ...that facts are no longer important to the discussion at DailyKos -- at least, not if they don't fit the chosen narrative.

              Rather sad, in my opinion.

              Good on you for trying, though.

              Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

              by theatre goon on Fri May 10, 2013 at 04:19:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are correct (0+ / 0-)

                Discussing the actual article and actual proposal is very problematic around here.  

                It is within your power to fix that.

                •  Sadly, I can't force others... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

         embrace reality.

                  There is no requirement that the conversation must stay within the narrow confines which you declare are appropriate.

                  The facts are what they are -- you can ignore them all you like, but it won't change reality.

                  Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                  by theatre goon on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:38:22 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What Am I Ignoring (0+ / 0-)

                    The actual articles and proposals in those articles? I want to know what you think I'm ignoring?

                    The NRA opposed using taggants, saying they would contaminate some explosives used by gun hobbyists, like old-fashioned gunpowder called black powder and the newer smokeless powder. It said people who liked to fire antique rifles or who loaded their own ammunition would have to use less accurate gunpowder.
                    The 1990s proposal was about bulk powder and the Lautenberg proposal is about bulk powder.  Neither is about powder in cartridges.
                    •  It's pretty straightforward stuff. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      The diary makes the claim that the NRA has lobbied for legislation that hampers criminal investigations -- specifically, the use of taggants in explosives specifically, and, from that, the discussion moved on to the use of taggants in ammunition -- as discussions often do, move on to a different but related subject.

                      Clearly, then, it is reasonable to discuss whether the addition of taggants to explosives and ammunition is feasible and/or useful to criminal investigations.  It is a part of the central claim of the diary itself, after all, and of the expansion of the discussion in the commentary.

                      I am unclear why you want to avoid that part of the discussion, but your own apparent personal dislike of that discussion in no way makes it irrelevant or out of place.

                      If you choose not to engage in that expanded discussion, that is your choice -- but your insistence that no one else may discuss it is rather out of place and, in and of itself, irrelevant.  One might reasonably wonder exactly why you want to avoid that particular discussion, of course, but it still has no bearing on the discussion itself.

                      As I said, it is rather straightforward.

                      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                      by theatre goon on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:04:31 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm Not Avoiding Anything (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm talking about the actual bill the NRA stopped and the actual Lautenberg proposal.  Only gun fetishists came in waiving a 30 some year old study about outdated technology and insisting ammunition would be compromised--something also not consistent with the articles linked from the original post. It's entirely different technology now.

                        So if you want to talk about the actual post above, I've been addressing it.  If you want to talk about the possibility of tagging all ammunition which no one brought up until reddog and jayfrompa brought up, the discussion is avoiding basic points from the linked articles.

                        Either problem can be addressed by reading what is actually proposed and what the actual technology is long after a 1980 report that was done on a typewriter as the article points out.

                        Regardless of anything, read the damn post and articles and know what is actually being said instead of making up strawman arguments and declaring victory.  

                        •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          ...once you've devolved to name-calling, I can't see that you would have anything relevant to add to the discussion, so you have a lovely day.  

                          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                          by theatre goon on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:41:35 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  But Calling Everyone Stupid (0+ / 0-)

                            Despite not reading the actual article and controversies in the article while then trying to talk about taggants in ammunition is fine.  

                            Again, the article was about powder not ammunition.  There was no discussion of ammunition until reddog and jayfrompa decided that was what they wanted to argue about and started ranting about 1980 kinds of taggant technology.  This is all despite the actual linked articles also address that there is are entirely new technologies available.  

                            But your feelings were hurt because someone responded right back at you all pointing out the complete dishonesty of the talking points.  I'm so sorry.  

            •  Reading is Fundamental (0+ / 0-)

              I'd suggest reading the article this article is talking about here

              Under current law, people can buy up to 50 pounds of explosive "black powder" with no background check, and can buy unlimited amounts of other explosive powders, such as "black powder substitute" and "smokeless powder."

              Read more:
              Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

          •  I'd be a little embarassed (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            happy camper, PavePusher
            I'm always baffled by the absolute ignorance of people so irrationally obsessed with an issue.  

            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

            by ban nock on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:13:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Dog, by saying "I don't see..." means (0+ / 0-)

          you are expressing an opinion, not a fact.  Opinions are worthwhile but cannot automatically demand respect.

          Thats not gospel, its guessing.

          “Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.”

          by frenchy339 on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:41:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site