Paul is now crowing about "microstamping . He gives the usual talking points of "it will solve crimes", "it's proven technology", it's inexpensive", etc.
I know I've heard this refrain before. What was it now? Let me think... Oh right it was ..
BALLISTIC FINGERPRINTING.
And yet the places that implemented it have had little or no success w/ it. Why? Because it was not "proven" nor "effective" at solving crimes. MD wasted millions of dollars to solve exactly zero crimes w/ the police asking for it to be defunded while CA's DOJ study showed such poor results it failed to pass the legislature (surprisingly).
So now we have another new "proven" technology (apparently only proven by the patent holder) that will cost millions to implement and maintain, create even more paperwork mountains, is a defacto registry, and is easily defeatable.
So of course the Brady Bunch supports it.
The song remains the same.
Edit: Here's the E-mail MichaelS sent to Paul:
Dear Paul:
I am looking forward to when you will open the blog up again to comments. Until then, I will send an email.
As far as micro stamping, let’s assume for the moment that it works as well as you say it does. Do you really think that criminals are so stupid that they would use a micro stamped gun in a crime? Do you realize how easy it is to replace a firing pin on an automatic pistol? Even if micro stamping passes and gun manufacturers comply, unless there is a drastic redesign of the handguns involved, there are thousands of replacement firing pins already available on the market. (Do you propose picking those up and engraving them?) Also, anyone with access to machine tools could manufacture their own firing pins. Yes, a law could be passed prohibiting it but criminals who are willing to use guns in a crime probably aren’t going to worry about any penalty for violating that law.
I am not even going to go into how most crime guns are stolen or how easy it is to make firearms (even sub-machineguns), since those topics have already been covered in previous blogs.
Micro stamping is a feel-good measure that can easily be defeated. It will raise the cost of firearms not only for the consumer but law enforcement as well without a significant reduction in gun crimes.
Sincerely,
Michael
2 comments:
It will raise the cost of firearms not only for the consumer but law enforcement as well without a significant reduction in gun crimes.
Somehow I am thinking law enforcement would be exempt from having to use the guns with the microstamped firing pins. I don't know if the costs would still get passed on to customers regardless of whether they were LE agencies, but somehow I am thinking they could work around it.
"We've heard this song before"?
You mean, like THIS?
Gun control advocates wanted legislation requiring "taggants" in gunpowder. Congressmen friendly to gunowners changed that to requiring a STUDY only. Here is the results of the study (under the Clinton administration).
Wow! The NRA was 100% right and gun control advocates were 100% wrong! Strange, I don't remember the gun control advocates apologizing or issuing any retraction when this story was released. They did quietly drop the issue, though.
Gunpowder Markers Not Feasible, Panel Says
By WARREN E. LEARY (The New York Times 10-9-98)
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40A13FC385F0C7A8CDDA90994D0494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fN%2fNational%20Research%20Council
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 ~ There are no proven ways to tag or mark gunpowder to make it more easily detectable or to deter its use in bombings, a National Research Council panel said today.
In addition, the state of tagging technology, which has not been extensively researched, and the relatively low level of threat from illicit explosives using black and smokeless powders, do not support suggestions to immediately start marking these materials, the panel said.
The 14-member committee said current methods for detecting gunpowder bombs, including metal detectors and X-ray systems that spot devices containing the explosives, and trained dogs, are relatively effective.
"In order to guard against future threats, however, the committee believes that the Government should study more complex detection and identification methods so that policy-makers are better able to react if circumstances arise that warrant a more aggressive response," it said.
The committee called for research into promising tagging technology, much of which is being developed by small companies, and for the firearms bureau and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to combine and expand databases each is maintaining on gunpowders. This could be helpful in tracing the origin of explosives used in bombings.
The Clinton Administration, in antiterrorism proposals stemming from the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the fatal pipe bomb explosion at the Atlanta Olympics in 1996, campaigned for wide use of chemical markers in common explosives.
Congress rejected these proposals and called for more study after the National Rifle Association and other groups opposed putting markers into black or smokeless powder, questioning the effectiveness of tagging such widely used products and expressing concern that foreign chemicals might affect the gunpowder's performance.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 authorized the Treasury Department to study tagging explosives either for early detection or to help trace explosives after bombings. The department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms asked the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, to examine the issues and it convened two committees to conduct studies.
In a report released in March, the first committee looking at commercial high-grade explosives, like dynamite and military plastic explosives and chemical fertilizer used to make explosives, concluded that it was impractical to put markers into this material. It called for more research into cost, safety and effectiveness questions before considering such additives for wide use.
The second committee, which released its report today, reached similar conclusions concerning black and smokeless powder.
Black and smokeless powders are sold commercially primarily to gun owners for reloading ammunition and for shooting muzzleloading firearms. In addition to these legitimate uses, the panel said, the gunpowders can fuel explosive devices, most commonly pipe bombs.
From 1992 to 1996, the number of reported actual and attempted bombings involving black and smokeless powders averaged about 650 per year, the report said. In these incidents, about 10 people were killed, 100 people injured and about $1 million in property damage was reported annually. A significant number of those injured or killed, the panel noted, were people involved in building or transporting the bombs.
Post a Comment