jagbender
Registered
MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell The Boston Bombing are the NRA's fault.
- Thread starter jagbender
- Start date
jagbender
Registered
jagbender
Registered
I thought it was Bush's fault!
i don't see any harm putting taggants in gunpowder. reminds me of the controversy about companies refusing to make antifreeze taste bad. all boils down to profits.
jagbender
Registered
Niether do I. But Blaming the NRA is like blaming spoons for making people fat.
MSNBC spewes the crap and people believe it
Are you saying you lack knowledge on the subject or that based on your knowledge you believe there's no harm? I don't know much about the chemistry of taggants in ammunition.
Taggants in explosive is not a subject I'm knowledgeable on but I do know it will add costs to the ammo. Think about what will have to take place for it to be effective. It will have to be registered to the shooter, the batches will have to be small enough to meaningfully narrow purchasers, you'll have to ban( or severely restrict) the reselling of ammo, more government will be needed to enforce it,etc. The feds don't seem overly concerned about enforcing the laws already on the books. Sounds like playing politics.
I think you just told everyone, Lawrence.
i'd have to know more what that argument is against it. supposedly people fear it might make the gunpowder unstable just as people before thought adding a bittering agent to antifreeze MIGHT harm engines. with antifreeze i personally believe it was just a matter of costs and manufacturers fought it bitterly... pun intended, before finally agreeing to it.
Antifreeze manufacturers agree to add bittering agent to make products unpalatable to animals and humans - DVM
Antifreeze manufacturers agree to add bittering agent to make products unpalatable to animals and humans - DVM
The largest U.S. producer of taggants today is Microtrace, based in Minneapolis. Livesay acquired the license for Microtaggant from 3M in 1985 and formed his own company to manufacture it. "We only make taggants [for use in explosives] for one customer: the Swiss government," says Charles W. Faulkner, general counsel for Microtrace.
The Swiss have used them to solve 559 bombing cases since 1984, he adds.
The Swiss have used them to solve 559 bombing cases since 1984, he adds.
it's an old argument and i think the real objection is cost
The NRA, Taggants, and Revolution
The NRA opposes a government initiative to require that black powder be chemically tagged for later tracing. Various European countries do this and have used it to solve hundreds of bombings.
The NRA beat back a provision on taggants in last years' attempt to pass an antiterrorism bill. Now, in the wake of the Olympics pipe bomb, another taggants bill is before Congress.
The NRA's release on the topic follows the classic "the law hurts us, it isn't needed, and it wouldn't work anyway" path of the group's initiatives on laws banning armor-piercing bullets and semi-automatic weapons. The NRA claims that "This proposal could have a huge impact on the safety of the shooting sports, and deserves a very strict cost-benefit analysis by independent scientists, not Clinton Administration bureaucrats." The release goes on to make the following claims:
- Taggants are "potentially very dangerous, as they were found to increase chemical activity, promoting spontaneous combustion when mixed with nitroglycerin, a principal component of smokeless powder";
- The law is ineffective anyway because "a single batch of gunpowder will be distributed in one-half or one pound cans to thousands of dealers in typically 3 or 4 pound shipments and ultimately would be sold to 15,000 to 30,000 sportsmen for handloading."
What is the plan for the homemade black powder? All taggants will do is add cost to the law abiding. It's a red herring. That's all it is. Rather than get to the root of the problem all we concentrate on is the how. It's like putting a bandaid on a cancer patient. It does nothing to address the problem.
The Swiss have used them to solve 559 bombing cases since 1984, he adds.
I know stuff like this sounds nice but the real information is to what degree has adding taggants increased the rate of bombing cases solved or prevented. It's not enough to say 'taggants helped solve X bombing cases', that's not scientific information because it doesn't tell you to what degree, detriment, cost and ultimately if it has helped in the big picture sense of increasing the rate of bombing cases solved or prevented.
if the cost was minimal, it was safe, and it simply helped solve ANY crimes, which it unarguably does, i wouldn't mind the added cost. i don't mind paying a few pennies more for bad tasting antifreeze either even though one could argue that kids die drinking bleach and bleach tastes like shit... recycling my garbage is a bandaid on a cancer patient so to speak but i feel better doing it.
"Helps" solve crimes could mean any degree of benefit. I would need a real assessment before I would impose what is essentially a tax on buyers. My point isn't that we shouldn't add taggants as much as it is what would constitute evidence that we should. What you posted isn't enough to objectively claim it's a meaningful benefit.
too bad we can't do this with everything we pay taxes for.
dogsoldier
Elite Member
I am not against taggants in principle....Congress ordered a study of taggants, acknowledging no requirement to include them should be made unless:
They will not themselves pose a risk;
They will substantially assist law enforcement officers in their investigative efforts;
They will not substantially impair the explosives' lawful use;
They will not have a substantially adverse effect on the environment; and
The costs will not out weigh benefits.
Congress chose the The National Academy of Sciences to create, execute and report said study and they found:
Bombs using black and smokeless powders account for a small number of deaths and injuries each year; and no taggant system has been found that is technically feasible for use in black and smokeless powders.
If taggants were the answer to anything, they would have been in gun powder.
They will not themselves pose a risk;
They will substantially assist law enforcement officers in their investigative efforts;
They will not substantially impair the explosives' lawful use;
They will not have a substantially adverse effect on the environment; and
The costs will not out weigh benefits.
Congress chose the The National Academy of Sciences to create, execute and report said study and they found:
Bombs using black and smokeless powders account for a small number of deaths and injuries each year; and no taggant system has been found that is technically feasible for use in black and smokeless powders.
If taggants were the answer to anything, they would have been in gun powder.
Why do people bomb and commit mass murders? We don't know.
Why don't we know? We aren't interested in that.
Why aren't we interested in that? It's too difficult.
Why is it too difficult? That would require doing actual work.
Why don't we know? We aren't interested in that.
Why aren't we interested in that? It's too difficult.
Why is it too difficult? That would require doing actual work.
That's how most people form opinions. They just go with whatever sounds like it will work. The Brady Campaign has made an entire campaign out of the common sense fallacy.
think it's safe to say everybody on Faux news has him beat hands down.
because they probably would find out that it has a lot to do with the family system going to hell when womens lib raised it's fugly head and no one dares to say kids raised in daycares are disconnected and emotionally damaged.
dogsoldier
Elite Member
So my question of the left media, where is your retraction for saying that the Boston bombing was because of right wing extremists?
Let me clue you in. I KNEW that it could not be right wing extremists. How? Because the right wing sees themselves as protectors of the people. Now if they blew up a government building, I would have said, "Yep, that was the act of a right wing extremist group".
This may leave a few of you butt hurt. Bombing innocent people is the signature of Islamic terrorists and the radical left.
Let me clue you in. I KNEW that it could not be right wing extremists. How? Because the right wing sees themselves as protectors of the people. Now if they blew up a government building, I would have said, "Yep, that was the act of a right wing extremist group".
This may leave a few of you butt hurt. Bombing innocent people is the signature of Islamic terrorists and the radical left.
because around the globe extremist are always associated with the fundamentalists on the right. take for example Islam you have the Sunni's on the left and the Shia on the right. even within christianity you have the protestants on the left and on the evangelicals on the right wing, etc.
exphys88
Registered
You do realize that Muslims are very conservative right?
irish_2003
Board Rep
guns don't kill people...they cause global warming...
Only people that you can blame it on are those that did it!
dogsoldier
Elite Member
Yes, I do. I did not say Islamics were conservatives, socialists or libs, I said "Bombing innocent people is the signature of Islamic terrorists and the radical left."