amIrite?



I don't see evidence of the "peer review" they claim. WHo did it?

And nothing has yet been done to address normal parts wear, criminal defacing or replacing those parts that wear.

Hmmmm...

I don't see that happening. Hell, we're out of money for office supplies for the quarter.

do they still use the credit card for local purchase? I'm guessing the card holder doesn't go to Dollar General. I missed the days of Skillcraft pens at the LP store where you could even get ashtrays. My first boss was a SMSgt that was a workaholic and chain smoker. His office was a gas chamber (back in the 1980s).

No more smoking anywhere indoors, TTFSM, and we just got new out-door tobacco use regs that have the whole base scrambling to re-set their TU areas. What a Charlie Fox that is...

presently in circulation.

I guess they want to start exporting microstamped guns to Mexico.

Yes, the National Academy of Science receives funding from our good friends at the Joyce Foundation.

No bias there, i'm sure.

nothing new here. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it won't work, too many ways this can be defeated by criminal and defeated very easily.
All this is, is more feel good bullshit.

Look, there's all sorts of ways to get past anti-counterfeiting measures. Doesn't stop the treasury from trying. There's all sorts of ways to pirate software, doesn't keep the companies from trying.

I suppose your advice to microsoft would be "look guys, just save the ink you use for those security keys and stuff; it'll be on demonoid in a week anyway"

then I would be for it, but criminals are notorious for getting around these laws. Its a feel good law that ain't going to do nothing to solve crime and will be a huge waste of money.
But to listen to certain pro gun control org., this proposal is the best thing since sliced bread.

There's all sorts of ways to get around all sorts of forensics tests. For instance; a latex glove. For instance; a shower cap. for instance; hydrogen peroxide or ammonia. We should scrap fingerprinting, DNA and fluid sampling because it's relatively easy to evade them?

No. Because the fact of the matter is, most criminals don't put a lot of planning into the crime. Real life is not "Murder, She Wrote," much less any of the CSI series. These television shows have to make their antagonists criminal masterminds who cover every step they take, otherwise there's be little drama for the viewing audience. In reality, forensics only works because of how much evidence tends to be left behind; criminals are usually too focused on doing whatever the criminal act is that they just don't have time for all that movie villain planning.

Your only half-intelligent argument is that it costs money (I'm sorry, but squawking the NRA bullet-point, "feel-good, RAWK, feel-good, polly want a cracker!" does not a cogent position make.) Yeah, things cost money. Can you please tell me though, on your own estimate, what a reasonable cost - in precise dollar amounts - would be for a feature that makes it easier to catch even just a handfull of murderers? Extra credit; divide that dollar amount by the minimum number of criminals, and tell me what you value human life at. Thanks in advance.

Throw out the NRA shit. Ok here goes, instead of wasting money on a law that isn't going to solve anything, how about using the money towards solving social problems that cause crime, like poverty, jobs, urban blight, gang outreach, more cops. Just to name a few.
I'd rather work on the reasons for crime than pass a bullshit law thats going to do nothing.

Am I mistaken? Are you confused? I could probably draw you a venn diagram or something.

the same amount of sense. Isn't it wonderful, This work of art and the corresponding essay. Give Scooter an "A" for effort.

You have not addressed the ease with which the system can be avoided, nor the problem of the millions of unstamped guns in the state. Why spend millions on a system that a criminal can circumvent with only a few minutes time and a bit of emery cloth, or by using a revolver, or a brass catcher.

You haven't addressed the issue of decoy casings. You can be sure that a defense attorney would jump on that issue in a trial.

Serious question.

Crook picks up some fired casings that have micro-stamps. They were fired by someone else's gun. Crook commits crime, keeps his own casings, throws out the phony casings as decoys. Cops jump on false lead. You have seen the agument before, just not the term "decoy casings".

The COBIS system was very expensive and didn't solve a single crime. Why should this be any different?

I dont' trust the people who are pushing it. They are people who are routinely anti-gun who ultimately want all guns banned. I see this as a step in that direction.

I'm sure we can sit here all day and dream up all kinds of ways to fuck with the minds of Forensics Investigators. And at the end we would probably really be convinvced that the entire field of forensics is fucking useless becuase hey, if we - being the angelic law-abiders we are - can dream this stuff up, then surely the actual criminals render the real investigators as helpless as limbless kittens, right?

Again, no, because despite all our conjurations and imaginings about how it might be done, fact remains that forensics do work, because people engaging in criminal acts of this sort generally aren't masterminds of forethought and planning. We're not dealing with Goldfinger, we're dealing with those two assclowns from "Barbershop" who dragged an ATM all through Chicago's south side.


And yes, I'm sure you do see it as a step in that direction. I'll be frank - I'm more interested in what few things you don't consider a step towards banning guns. You guys talk about "banning guns" the same way Paultards talk about FEMA camps, it's like some sort of tribal creation myth or something.

1) The criminal steals or buys his firearm on the street. After he commits a crime that involves shooting the weapon he disposes of it after carefully wiping it down to remove any DNA. He then obtains another weapon.

2) The criminal uses a revolver and the micro-stamped brass stays in the cylinder.

You suggest that criminals are not intelligent. Some may not be but many have average or above average intelligence but lack the education and skill to work in a profitable occupation. They find they can make good money by engaging in criminal activity. Successful drug dealers often drive expensive cars and flaunt costly "bling" that they would not be able to afford if they were burger flippers. Of course well educated people also break the law but often their crimes do not involve firearms but instead are white collar crime.

Rather than impose expensive technology that would do little to solve gun violence I have some solutions to violent crime for you to consider.

1) We could consider the ideas that President Obama suggested in an op-ed to the Arizona Daily Star.

I know I most likely will not land up dead or in jail.
For this to work, the serial number has to be entered in some data base, and be registred to someone. Since the average crime gun is about 10-15 years old, and was likely stolen from (or sold to gangs by NYPD) someone someplace else in North America, the cops won't be able to cross match it with anything else. That is why the brass collection Pataki started did nothing of value. If the cops stumble across some gang's community guns, think they will be registred as required by state law? If not, the gun is not in the data base. If not in the data base, the number on the casing means nothing.

Since the law exempts law enforcement (why? Their guns get stolen too. Or, NYPD that sells them. Not to pick on just NYPD, some department in Ohio was selling sub machine guns and parts.) Long guns and revolvers are also exempt.

At how all these "responsible gun owners" are constantly having their guns stolen. Isn't a major part of being a responsible gun owner ensuring your guns are secure? Isn't 'deterring theft' one of the major reasons people buy guns? And yet, to hear folks like you tell it, every gun used in every crime is always stolen from someone. Because of course, no legitimate gun owner would ever perform a criminal act! it had to be one of those gosh-darned gun-thief ninjas that keep walking off with everyone's guns!

Hey, maybe it's true. Maybe they're all stolen! But doesn't that mean that an awful lot of "responsible gun owners" are pretty shitty at both being responsible AND owning guns? Is it like cars in Samoa or something?

...I just know I'm gonna have to explain that reference...

This does not automatically mean they have not been "responsible".

You can secure your firearm and still have it stolen. It happened to me. Am I irresponsible because a thief was patient, persistent and clever?

After all, to hear tell of it, it seems every gun used for a criminal act is "stolen."

Maybe if car owners made a huge ruckus about how real car owners would never commit a hit and run every time a driver runs over someone and thus that guy absolutely must be driving a stolen vehicle, I would get a laugh out of how idiotic they are, too. But they don't.

Which is funny, since the law of averages would state that car owners are on average dumber than gun owners, since there's a larger sample. Go figure.

There are about 300 million guns in the country. If the annual theft rate is only 1/5 of 1%, that is still 600,000 guns, annually. Since guns are an extremely durable item, that is easily enough guns to keep the criminal element well supplied.

So both statements are true. Guns are rarely stolen, yet most crime guns are stolen guns.

DNA and fingerprints are unique and inherent to everybody; I can't change my fingerprints or file away my DNA, and I certainly can't acquire either on the street from a shady dealer to cover my tracks. I also leave fingerprints in the general course of living, and I leave them everyplace. Microstamped guns only work if they are used, are auto-loading, and the casings are not cleaned up or collected.

I agree that with most violent crimes, the perp is too focused on the crime and the limitations of the environment (e.g., witnesses calling 911, approaching pedestrians, etc.) to do effective clean-up sort of trying to burn a house down or something similar. But it's a hell of a lot easier to buy/steal a legitimately-owned gun, file off the microstamp at my own convenience, and carry the now-untraceable-by-microstamping gun with me whenever I go commit crimes. If circumstances occur where I have to use the gun, hey, I'm covered. But I can't go around wearing gloves and showercaps and carrying bottles of solvent while wandering around looking for a likely victim.


Also, DNA and fingerprints are not collected and stored in a government police database upon birth. Are you advocating that as a crime-fighting measure? Would you trust Romney or Scott Walker or Rick Scott or Ken Blackwell or Rick Santorum with this information?

Remember, for microstamping to work, the gun must be registered with the criminal!

wanted to see that in the subjectline. Too good not to be.

or microsift writes a new CD key security kernel it doesn't mean more regulations that the average citizen must now be compliant with. In those instances, nothing changes for the Average Joe. More gun regulations translate into more opportunity to inadvertently ensnare otherwise honest citizens. When frivolous gun control laws like this are passed, the responsibility falls on OUR shoulders. Furthermore, the examples you provided aren't constitutionally enumerated rights.

All of this hoopla over a law that anyone with an IQ over fifty could thwart with a $.99 nail file, a handful of spent firing range brass, or simpy using a revolver. Not to mention the nearly 300,000,000 guns already out there without microstampingg. Registries simply don't work... making them more complicated/technological won't help either.

Gun control measures would have a more popular reception if they didn't propose measures that offer more restrictions with almost no chance that they'll deliver any crime solving utility. Why should anyone support laws that offer nothing for the price paid?

You would expect to be well-regulated.

Militias whose members don't have guns don't work so well.

I'm not interested in rehashing constitutional linguistics. Long story short: The circa-1776 phrase "well regulated" means "well functioning" or "properly working". For example, a well regulated clock is a clock that keeps accurate time. Or a well regulated militia is a milita who effectly conveys force. Therefore a militia made up of People not able to keep and bear arms cannot be well functioning/regulated. "Regulated" does not have the meaning as the post 19th century phrase referring to being lawfully mandated.

The individual is mentioned nowhere in the amendment; "The People" is always a collective term; contrast to the use of "persons" in the fourth and fifth amendment, the use of "Owner" in the 3rd amendment, and the use of "the accused" in the sixth. Those are individual terms.

You do have a right to individual firearm ownership... However it's not a constitutional right. It's a common law right, same as your right to ownership of any other piece of property. Your legendary "gun grabbers" might be accused of violating your fourth amendment rights, but so long as The People at large can keep and bear arms - and police and military forces count as part of The People for this purpose - the 2nd amendment is not violated.

This is why you don't get to own your own atomic bomb; your property rights can be curtailed for certain items of property. The People however, can and do own several hundred atomic weapons.

And yes, i'm aware that this is a literal reading that generally isn't used in court; I'm also aware that the 14th amendment has been read by hte courts to rule that McDonalds is a person, so let's just say the courts can be factually incorrect

Some state constitutions of the time written in clearer language dictate the indivual right to own arms. These authors include some of the same men present at the signing of the Constitution. Why would the intent of these more clearly worded state constitutions and the US constitution differ from an individual versus a collective right? The intent of our state and national leaders was to ensure individual right to ownership. And many of the constitutions written later reflect this...

Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819)
Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. II, § 26
Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. Art. II, § 5 (enacted 1868, art. I, § 5).
Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).
Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Art. I, § 20
Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ...
VII: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. § 1
Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. Art. I, § 11
Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. Art. I, § 16
Michigan: Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State. Art. I, § 13.
Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State. Art. I, § 23. (1817)
Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23
Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. Art. II, § 12
Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. Art. I, § 1
Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. Art. I, § 11(1)
New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. Pt. 1, art. 2-a
North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1984).
Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1907).
Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).
Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. Art. I, § 6
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).
Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).
West Virginia: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. Art. III, § 22

And I did point out I was using a literal reading rather than the usual accepted court definition. I figured that since you wanted to argue language after explaining you didn't want to argue language (...whut?) I might as well join you.

As for your title question... I dunno, it's been looking awfully shaky. I keep hearing this slogan-spew from the gun fetishists about how "the second" supposedly "protects the first" - I see it on bumper stickers all the damn time, at least - and I've been wondering, "Yeah, when?" I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the time someone spends bitching about their 2nd amendment rights is directly inverse to the amount of give-a-fuck they have for the other enumerated rights in the constitution. So long as your absolute god-given unquestionable inalienable sacred necessary constitutionally-protected indubitable morally-required right to own a thing is never challenged or looked at askance, well, the rest of it can all go fuck itself.

Pretty much what all this comes down to, really. Terror that someone might touch your stuff.

It's too bad Scootaloo's literal interpretation of the Constitution doesn't actually mean anything when weighed against judicial interpretations, settled case law, or even popular opinion.

Tell me, under which particular set of rights is your right to keep and bear erroneous interpretations?

the BoR specifically delineates individual rights - go read your history.

You remember? If the prosecutor presses charges, then you're guilty? I hope you remember, you spent an awful lot of effort trying to validate that point.

Go back to sniffing your cordite, man.

unless you think that prosecutors should be indicting people they know for a fact have broken no laws.

It is amazing how gun grabbers gravitate to the authoritarian side when it suits their agenda.


So you really believe that the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with individual rights? You must have loved the Patriot Act.

But I'm not sure that what you're showing us is what you had intended to show.

(""The People" is always a collective term?" Really? That quote certainly shows something about you...)

Do I need to explain the concepts of plural nouns and collective forms of address to you? 'Cause I will charge a tutoring fee, which might cut into your ammo budget for this week.

Really hope there aren't people paying you to tutor them, lousy ROI IMO.

But since they are screaming to be excluded... that raises a serious "Bullshit" flag for me.

I figure they want to be excluded because, well, these days it seems law enforcement simply expects to be above the law.

This is the Richland county (SC) Sheriff's Department:


I somehow don't think they view themselves as subject to the same law as the rest of us. How 'bout you?

I'd have to see a history of their actions.

And the plain truth is that police have an infrequent, but still important, history of trying to cover up mistakes and outright crimes. When they protest against something that, by the arguments of the pro-restriction folks, would make it more difficult for them to do so, I get suspicious.

Now perhaps if South Carolina were facing a large insurrection of military-armed fighters... Perhaps I could see a need. But that's what the National Guard is for, if I'm not mistaken. Point is, if your police force has artillery on their budget, they probably have a very different idea about their role under the law than the rest of us.

Also, do tell me how buying a firearm that has an alphanumeric code etched on the pin "restricts" you. 'Cause that sounds to me an awful lot like the people who are bitching and moaning about incandescent bulbs being phased out.

DoD gives them along with guns and other equipment away to PDs. Then there are those DHS "use it or lose it funds." I read somewhere on DU (I'll have to find the link) that DoD suspended the program because some PDs could not account for some of the guns. One thing the military is anal about is accounting for equipment like guns (which can lead to spending a couple of days kicking over rocks and brush looking for an M-60 bolt that somehow got lost. No, I didn't lose it. Found it on day three, but I digress.) Moral of the story, if the local gang is flush with Beretta model 92 pistols, guess where they got them.

as there is at least an order of magnitude difference in the destructive capabilities of each.

An APV could have been quite useful in the Hollywood Bank Robbery shootout some years ago. Hardened Meth labs. Some hostage/baricaded gunman situations. And no, the National Guard does not have domestic policing powers, takes time to be called up, mobilized and deployed, and is currently under primarily Federal control. IIRC, the state governors have to ask for Federal permission to use NG assets.

The problem with the coding has been explained several times, but in synopsis: It can be absurdly easily bypassed/defaced, so is of no possible use in catching criminals, and serves merely as a registration of lawful civilian firearms.

No, thank you.

now look into how it can be defeated. Is it as easy to file off as said? There is potential here but one study for or against is not enough.

Can anyone find a link to the study or abstract?

Plus the cost of the bureaucracy to track the buying and selling of firearms and firing pins.

Lines at the guns stores, of legitimate citizens, buying legal firearms before the prices go up or in manufacturers decide to say screw it and not sell to NY stores.

Bloomburg mental midgetry goes state wide.

Microstamping isn't much more technologically advanced than that.

Feel good legislation is all this is. Politicians are technically challenged.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/cuomo_whacks_pataki_gun_law_IdjMJUXtMATKjhzqCOJLAK

Trouble is, the Pataki program NEVER worked. Despite the hundreds of thousands of spent shells submitted, not one criminal was ever captured using the extensive and costly-to-maintain database, state officials concede.

“We are ending a program that doesn’t solve crimes or make our streets safe,’’ said Cuomo spokesman Josh Vlasto.

“That’s what we said would happen from the start,’’ crowed Tom King, president of the New York Rifle and Pistol Association and a National Rifle Association board member. “I think Andrew Cuomo is a very intelligent guy who didn’t want to waste money, and this wasn’t working.”

Vlasto said CoBis cost about $1.2 million a year, but King said it was more like $40 million because of equipment, staff and related expenditures to get the system up and running.

Vlasto said the state would shift at least some of its CoBis spending to the federal National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, which tracks spent shells from guns used in crimes and not simply from those that were legally sold.

Ending CoBis is expected to strengthen the argument against another controversial anti-gun- crime technology, microstamping, which requires gun makers to install a device to put ID marks on spent cartridge shells.

Here's a link if you'd like to support it.

During the 2010 campaign, Governor Andrew Cuomo was unequivocal in his support for microstamping as a way to keep New York communities safe.

Fill out the information below and a fax will be automatically be sent to Governor Cuomo urging him to become a leader and pass microstamping.

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5610/c/209/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=10783

nt

You really think criminals care? How easy is it to file the firing pin, or just use a revolver or just pick up the spent shell casings.
Sometimes Gov. Cuomo can be an ass.

The smoke and mirrors illusion of feel good laws.

One thing even you can admit, hoyt, is that guns are effective. They are designed as lethal weapons and they certainly are good at it. However registries, by and large, are phenominal wastes of money considering the amount of crime they solve, if any. Didn't Canada recently scrap an entire registry due to massive budget overruns and lack of performance?

that perspective. I think the number of times a gun is actually needed outside the home is quite small.

As to Canadian registry, it was quite different from merely keeping a data base of the original purchaser of a gun with microstamping and the image microstamped. Canada's system included licensure fees, forms sent in by owners (which were often in error), etc. Most importantly, the only part of the registry abandoned was the unrestricted long-gun (rifle portion). Handguns are still subject to registration and severely restricted.

You work for Penn State?

Sounds like to me for it to work a total private possession ban will have to be put into place. Untracked sales, stolen guns and PMSF's will circumvent microstamping.

First we'll have to round up all firearms, ID them with their proper owners. Destroy those that can't be adapted to Big Brothers tracking technology.

2. Store all firearms in a government location (courthouse, police station ect...)

3. Have all firearms checked out and accompanied with a government monitor.


Sounds expensive, and hard to implement, I recommend a total ban instead.

1. All firearms are banned
2. Turn them in
3. Grace period
4. Utopia

"Marketwatch"?, as in stock market? The same Wall Street Journal that is little more than the rich talking to the rich? Who owns WSJ now, Oh yeah:

Someone's trying to defend their disaster capitalist business model in the press. It's a puff piece without a word about how easily microstamping can be defeated.

Just sayin'.

I was referring to why the article was published and noting where.

Here is the peer-review process for articles submitted for publication in the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) Journal:

...AFTE Peer Review Process – August 2009

The AFTE Peer Review Process starts with the submission of an article to the Editor. After recording when the article was received, author’s name and title of the submission, the Editor assigns the article to a member of the Editorial Review Panel. An email is sent to both the author and the reviewer informing both of the assignment and how the two can contact each other.

Once in the reviewer’s hands, the article is reviewed for grammatical and technical correctness. Only major revisions are addressed with the author. Minor revisions include corrections to grammar or spelling and rewording for clarity.

If a reviewer accepts a manuscript with only minor revisions, it is returned to the Editor. The manuscript is then assigned to one of the Assistant Editors for a secondary review of grammar and technical content.

If the manuscript is approved by the Assistant Editor, it is returned to the Editor for formatting and publication.

Once the article has been electronically formatted, it is assembled in a journal with other approved articles. The assembled journal undergoes one last review by all three Assistant Editors and the Editor. Final corrections are made by the Editor and the journal is sent to the printer....

Source: http://www.afte.org/Journal/PeerReviewProcess.htm

For those unfamiliar with publication of scientific research, the above describes an editorial review process and not an academic one. The people who do the reviewing are checking for grammar, spelling, and clarity and not for scientific validity. They are writers and editors who may or may not have any knowledge of the subject matter, i.e. they are not necessarily technical experts. The publication is a trade association journal, not a scientific one.

I haven't read the paper, but in the absence of information about the test I suspect it involved clean, new firearms in perfect working condition that were prepared or selected specifically for the test; and that the test was intended to prove that the micro-stamping technology can produce legible marks on ammunition that was also selected for the test.

I know from experience that there is a lot of variability in the hardness, finish, and other properties of materials used to make cartridge cases. I would bet that the output of a micro-stamp equipped firearm varies depending on the quality and condition of the ammunition. For example, most cartridge cases are made of brass. Sometimes brass cases are plated with nickel, which is much harder than brass. The finish of the metal ranges from near mirror polish to very rough.

Some cases are made of aluminum. Still others, painted steel. I'm not going to sit here and take it for granted that this test in any way validates that the technology would work equally well on all types of cases.

If I were to design a test, I'd include a broad cross-section of ammunition, different firearms with a realistic range of operating characteristics, and a variety of real-world circumstances such as the presence of dirt, oil, and powder residue. I'd run tests across a variety of environmental conditions. I would also test the effects of deliberate attempts to defeat the technology.

This story looks to me like an attempt to sell something.

Well played sir.

Well played.

Gun stores, and 100% of right wing gun organisations.

Microstamping does no harm, so give it a try.

Far worse than the harm done by the small increase in the price of a new gun.

Which cost $40 million to start up and $1.2 million per year to maintain.

That's a pretty high cost per crime solved, especially if the number of crimes solved is zero.

Of course we could start micro-stamping everything that people buy and get a discount for solving zero crimes in larger volume.

I don't know about your state, but mine is broke and getting more broke by the day. The Governor wants to spend $65 billion on a high-speed rail system from nowhere in particular to no place anyone wants to go, bypassing environmental impact study requirements and trashing farmland to create a good feeling about how we're helping the environment. I don't think we can afford $40 million on a micro-stamping system that won't help law enforcement. We have more important things to do here in California.

Marysville/Yuba City/Beale?

From San Diego I could get to the southern end of the link by car in about 2 hours if I time the traffic correctly. Then I could get on a train and be in Merced in another hour and a half.

Once in Merced, I can step off the train, hail a cab for the short ride to the zoo and see Sparky the Alpaca.



Then I can go back to the train station and do the whole trip again in reverse. Total cost out of pocket for my adventure? Not yet known, but probably a lot more than riding the Giant Dipper roller-coaster down in Mission Beach. That's always fun and doesn't require a TSA body cavity search.

None of them has solved any crimes or tracked any guns backed to their source yet.

The existing national system of serial numbers on the guns themselves has been a lot more useful.

of microstamping - bit tough to call that an "independent study."

However, here's a link if anyone wants to peruse it: http://nyagv.org/microstamping-study/

These folks already did some of what you brought up.

I find it quite silly they assumed that 2,500 rounds would be the "average" number of rounds fired over a firearm's lifetime. I could do that in one year.

Other than that the study has some good stuff.

UC Davis study.
http://extension.ucdavis.edu/masters/forensic%5Fscience/pdf/UCD-Microserial%20Number%20CPRC%20Report%20May%20April.pdf

...will transfer the impression of the design to the softer metal?


Wow, that's a game changer for metallurgists and iron smiths. Just think of all the applications? Life will never be the same from this moment on folks.

Best. Post. Ever.

I knew you would see the light eventually.

Doing nothing is always better than doing something wasteful.

That is because Shall Issue, SYG, Castle Doctrine, Parking Lot at Work, Open Carry, etc. has been well tried in many states and they work very well. Our tactic is to point out that they have worked.

In Texas, as I have proven and as you have ignored, concealed carry saves more innocent lives than it takes. In 2009 it killed one innocent and saved a few dozen innocents. I have posted the proof and the links to the government statistics but you run away from them.

How do you prove microstamping is effective when studies say that VASTLY more information is needed?

for society, now and in the future.

This is physics and what you advocate isn't good for society. Sorry, ellisonz has failed miserably at the RW label campaign, you are even worse at it than he is...

I hnow you guys are all into speed, impact, etc., but that's not what this topic is about.

Technical aspects, still tripping up the anti-gun crowd.

In Texas, all homicides have to go before a grand jury, even the ones that are obviously valid self-defense. In 2009 there were 52 justified homicides by civilians. That is 52 times that people were genuinely in fear of their lives. For every dead felon there were likely about four that were wounded and survived. Those defenders had to go before a grand jury also. There would likely have been about 200 of them who also used a gun to defend their lives. Out of those about 250 who actually pulled the trigger in self-defense there are certainly some who would be dead if they had not done so.

And there are an unknown number who didn't need to shoot but scared their attacker away simply by showing the gun. My wife would be in that number, but not in 2009. I think her incidents were in 2005. How many of those there are is guesswork, but they certainly exist.

Set against that is exactly one murder conviction for 2009 for a person with a CHL. So CHLers are saving more innocents than are being killed.

Based on the evidence presented the microstamping will be an expensive boondogle that will accomplish nothing except make guns more expensive.

I also oppose registration as I don't trust anti-gunners. Twice registration lists have been turned into confiscation lists.

You have judged Zimmerman as guilty before the trial has even convened. Not very progressive of you. If the jury finds him "Not Guilty" then you will have a fit.

a threat before you either shoot them or attempt to intimidate them with you gun?

Are these slimy innuendos the only tool left in your belt?

Yet we are supposed to wait on judging Zimmerman, and the like?

while you're being attacked. Lawful action by a citizen during a violent encounter is very different from due process by the state afterward.

... before they use deadly force to defend themselves and the public?

Do you understand the fundamental difference between self-defense and the legal process? It doesn't appear that you do.

...as he attacks me. He can easily avoid my gun by not attacking me.

It has already happened to my wife, twice, about five or six years ago.

how many?
for how long?
number of crimes solved?
did they supply the criminals with the test devices?
did they recover their firearms?

A floating firing pin strikes the primer twice. And since it floats it can strike the primer at different angles.