Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

Manufacturer's are just choosing to not sell firearms in California rather than comply with the microstamping requirement. They cite prohibitive costs as a specific reason.

It's a fantastic thing for them to simply say the cost is prohibitive. It's a completely other thing to show it.

They haven't done the latter.

Like I already said, unless something has changed, NanoMark is the only company who offers microstamping.

***Citation required.

[Tinykong]

It's a fantastic thing for them to simply say the cost is prohibitive. It's a completely other thing to show it.

They haven't done the latter.

Just like the AG saying "other companies can use this" is a completely different thing compared to "other companies are using this."

***Please prove people aren't doing something.

lulz

[Mayhem]

Like I already said, unless something has changed, NanoMark is the only company who offers microstamping.

Hey look, an argument from ignorance, that´s something new

[TZucchini]

Just like the AG saying "other companies can use this" is a completely different thing compared to "other companies are using this."

Except we have evidence directly refuting the statements of Smith and Weston. Where's the evidence refuting what the AG said?

lulz

You're the one that made that absolutely laughable claim in the first place. If you can't provide evidence for it, then it's everyone else that should be laughing at you.

So please. Provide evidence for that claim.

- - - Updated - - -

.....While Tiny is doing his best to find evidence that doesn't exist, here's an interesting quote:

“The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department homicide bureau has hundreds of unsolved cases where the only evidence left at the scene of the crime were expended bullet casings. If these casings had imprinted information on them from the firearm our investigators would have an exceptional chance of solving these heinous crimes." - Sheriff Lee Baca

[Tinykong]

Except we have evidence directly refuting the statements of Smith and Weston. Where's the evidence refuting what the AG said?

Except, you don't. You just have your irrelevant opinion statement.

You're the one that made that absolutely laughable claim in the first place. If you can't provide evidence for it, then it's everyone else that should be laughing at you.

So please. Provide evidence for that claim.

NanoMark owned the patent. If you want to claim that since it lapsed, other companies are offering it for sale, let's see it.

.....While Tiny is doing his best to find evidence that doesn't exist, here's an interesting quote

If only microstamping didn't fail to successfully trace 80% of the time.

[TZucchini]

Except, you don't. You just have your irrelevant opinion statement.

I have a cost assessment from a company that produces this technology. That would be evidence.

NanoMark owned the patent. If you want to claim that since it lapsed, other companies are offering it for sale, let's see it.

I'm not making any claims. I'm simply asking you to cite your own.

If you can't provide evidence, then rescind your claim. It's that simple.

If only microstamping didn't fail to successfully trace 80% of the time.

Looking at the actual study, I can't find that information anywhere. In fact, it keeps saying things like "The gear code structures transferred with an average overall rate of 90%."

Also interesting that the study finds the cost of microstamping comes to $7.87 per firearm. And it's even more interesting that Rep. LaMalfa's website cites the cost of $200, while citing the same study that says it's only $8.

[TwoNineMarine]

I have a cost assessment from a company that produces this technology. That would be evidence.



I'm not making any claims. I'm simply asking you to cite your own.

If you can't provide evidence, then rescind your claim. It's that simple.



Looking at the actual study, I can't find that information anywhere. In fact, it keeps saying things like "The gear code structures transferred with an average overall rate of 90%."

Also interesting that the study finds the cost of microstamping comes to $7.87 per firearm. And it's even more interesting that Rep. LaMalfa's website cites the cost of $200, while citing the same study that says it's only $8.

Perhaps that total is taking into account any additional fees, costs, possible taxes? Chances are the cost of the microstamping itself is $7.87. But the additional stuff that goes on it could quickly add up to that $200 figure. And we all know how taxes like to find their way into places lol

[Mayhem]

Perhaps that total is taking into account any additional fees, costs, possible taxes? Chances are the cost of the microstamping itself is $7.87. But the additional stuff that goes on it could quickly add up to that $200 figure. And we all know how taxes like to find their way into places lol

Yeah, let´s argue with "hey but what if", rather than produce real numbers. That´ll work wonders.

[Tinykong]

I have a cost assessment from a company that produces this technology. That would be evidence.

A "cost estimate" from one company is no more accurate than that of any other company.

I'm not making any claims. I'm simply asking you to cite your own.

If you can't provide evidence, then rescind your claim. It's that simple.

Another PRE911 memory lapse. You made this claim:

there are multiple companies that have the technology

NanoMark owned the patent and was the only manufacturer up to and including the time the patent lapsed. If you want to claim other people are offering it for sale since it has lapsed. let's see it. Since you have twice now failed to produce anything except more boasting, I'm going to presume you are just, per usual, making shit up.

Looking at the actual study, I can't find that information anywhere. In fact, it keeps saying things like "The gear code structures transferred with an average overall rate of 90%."

Also interesting that the study finds the cost of microstamping comes to $7.87 per firearm. And it's even more interesting that Rep. LaMalfa's website cites the cost of $200, while citing the same study that says it's only $8.

That's an estimated cost to the manufacturer, not the price to the consumer. Nice try, though. Keep working at it, you might get it!

[TZucchini]

A "cost estimate" from one company is no more accurate than that of any other company.

What a ridiculous statement. So when it comes to microstamping cost estimation, you're saying that a firearm manufacturer will have an equally accurate estimate as a laser printing company?

How about when it comes to ammunition cost estimation. Would a firearm company and a laser company both have an equally accurate estimate?

Another PRE911 memory lapse. You made this claim:

That claim is supported by the DOJ in the statement I've already supplied. So....

NanoMark owned the patent and was the only manufacturer up to and including the time the patent lapsed. If you want to claim other people are offering it for sale since it has lapsed. let's see it. Since you have twice now failed to produce anything except more boasting, I'm going to presume you are just, per usual, making shit up.

You want me to produce evidence? Sure.

"The patent holders of the technology, Todd Lizotte and Orest Ohar, have announced that a royalty-free license for microstamping will be provided for semiautomatic handguns sold for civilian use over the entire United States and its territories. This offer was formalized in a June 15, 2007, press release, which confirmed that there will be “no sole source” for microstamping technology and that the free “license will provide the firearm industry a variety of options for selecting pre-qualified equipment suppliers and job-shop services or they will have the option of building their own equipment or use existing equipment to perform the microstamping process.”

Source is here. In fact, that source addresses pretty much every single myth you managed to concoct about microstamping.

[TwoNineMarine]

Yeah, let´s argue with "hey but what if", rather than produce real numbers. That´ll work wonders.

I'm not arguing anything. I was given two completely different numbers. I'm simply theorizing how we it's possible to get to both.

I even said earlier I'm not neccesarily against microstamping if it doesn't cost much. I honestly don't think it'll do anything to help curb gun crime. But if it'll make people "feel safer" and not cost me any extra when I go to purchase a gun then so be it.

[Pally power]

Haven't read the thread, and honestly I don't think I could with it being as long as it is, but I believe in the right to bear arms, period.

A lot of people will say that guns cause deaths, and cite high rates of gun related deaths. However, what they often omit is that a large number of those deaths are suicides, and that those statistics are gathered from metropolitan areas, where gun violence is through the roof relative to the rest of the country. Then there's just the people who cry "child killer" whenever you say you don't like gun control. Hardly anything more than an emotion based attack by someone who knows their opinion is unsubstantiated.

Anyways, I was raised around guns; my father bought me my own air rifle when I was seven and trained me to shoot, and I've often gone hunting with my grandfather. While I'm willing to admit that there are some disturbed individuals in this world who would kill with a gun for any reason besides self defence, I don't believe that my ability to own and use one should be limited because of the actions of an individual completely unrelated to myself. After all, I'm a trained and sensible person, so why should I be punished?

[Mayhem]

I'm not arguing anything. I was given two completely different numbers. I'm simply theorizing how we it's possible to get to both.

I even said earlier I'm not neccesarily against microstamping if it doesn't cost much. I honestly don't think it'll do anything to help curb gun crime. But if it'll make people "feel safer" and not cost me any extra when I go to purchase a gun then so be it.

http://www.efsgv.org/wp-content/uplo...roven-Memo.pdf

If firearm manufacturers go from an increase of $0.50 - $3 per firearm to an increase of $200 per firearm for private sales because of this technology then that´s ridiculous. We have no reason to believe this other than some people claim it, without any explanation at all for the gross increase in costs.

[TwoNineMarine]

http://www.efsgv.org/wp-content/uplo...roven-Memo.pdf

If firearm manufacturers go from an increase of $0.50 - $3 per firearm to an increase of $200 per firearm for private sales because of this technology then that´s ridiculous. We have no reason to believe this other than some people claim it, without any explanation at all for the gross increase in costs.

Perhaps you didn't read my previous posts. I'm not saying the technology itself will cost $200. I believe PRE when he says it'll be like 8 bucks. My theory though is that it will end up costing more by the time you purchase the weapon due to taxes, various fees, and costs associated with shipping the firing pin back and forth to get the microstamp on it.

[Mayhem]

Perhaps you didn't read my previous posts. I'm not saying the technology itself will cost $200. I believe PRE when he says it'll be like 8 bucks. My theory though is that it will end up costing more by the time you purchase the weapon due to taxes, various fees, and costs associated with shipping the firing pin back and forth to get the microstamp on it.

So you think it will cost more based on no information at all.

[Tinykong]

What a ridiculous statement. So when it comes to microstamping cost estimation, you're saying that a firearm manufacturer will have an equally accurate estimate as a laser printing company?

Considering they may have to modify their tooling and assembly process, yes, the firearms manufacturer that has to implement the etched firing pin has a better ability to estimate their costs than the company who merely etches the pin. Spoken with true ignorance again, PRE.

Source is here. In fact, that source addresses pretty much every single myth you managed to concoct about microstamping.

This doesn't prove anything, except what I already said: the patent expired. Lets see another company besides NanoMark that is actually selling this technology not just more of this typical PRE911 "you can't prove a negative so I'm right looooooooooooooool."

[TwoNineMarine]

So you think it will cost more based on no information at all.

The government taxes are of course speculative at this point. But the government tends to tax everything they can, so it's not outside the realm of possibilities. And perhaps you know nothing of business. But there are costs associated with everything you do. And having to ship stuff back and forth can rack up quite the bill.

And as I said before I am purely theorizing at this point. No need to attack.

[Tasttey]

Now I'm not a lawyer (Stormdash feel free to chime in here) but I did notice a few things in the amendment as well as the original bill:
http://law.justia.com/codes/californ...125-12133.html
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/...d_sen_v96.html

Interestingly enough I couldn't find any text within the amendment or original bill that makes it a crime to remove or alter said microstamping technology after purchase. While it is already a federal offense to obscure/remove the serial number on a firearm we may need a court ruling as to whether that offense extends to this new microstamping.

Although with the current wording it does seem to include any firearms that are are sold used. Lacking a grandfather clause the law would make it a crime to resell any firearm that doesn't meet the new criteria.

12129. Every person who is licensed as a manufacturer of firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code who manufactures firearms in this state, and every person who imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale any firearm, shall certify under penalty of perjury and any other remedy provided by law that every model, kind, class, style, or type of pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person that he or she manufactures or imports, keeps, or exposes for sale is not an unsafe handgun as prohibited by this chapter.

And now for the devil's advocate portion of our post:

I wonder how effective this microstamping is in regards to reloaded casings. Unless you are policing only your brass (picking up spent casings at the range) you're bound to end up with casings with someone else's engravings, how muddled would the reapplied marks be.

Beyond that one could, in theory, utilize a brass catcher (http://www.amazon.com/Brass-Catcher-.../dp/B00J4VIVCK) and drop casings collected from other owners at the shooting range to hinder police investigations.

[Ghostpanther]

Haven't read the thread, and honestly I don't think I could with it being as long as it is, but I believe in the right to bear arms, period.

A lot of people will say that guns cause deaths, and cite high rates of gun related deaths. However, what they often omit is that a large number of those deaths are suicides, and that those statistics are gathered from metropolitan areas, where gun violence is through the roof relative to the rest of the country. Then there's just the people who cry "child killer" whenever you say you don't like gun control. Hardly anything more than an emotion based attack by someone who knows their opinion is unsubstantiated.

Anyways, I was raised around guns; my father bought me my own air rifle when I was seven and trained me to shoot, and I've often gone hunting with my grandfather. While I'm willing to admit that there are some disturbed individuals in this world who would kill with a gun for any reason besides self defence, I don't believe that my ability to own and use one should be limited because of the actions of an individual completely unrelated to myself. After all, I'm a trained and sensible person, so why should I be punished?

Some good points. And I agree. Thanks for your input.

- - - Updated - - -

Now I'm not a lawyer (Stormdash feel free to chime in here) but I did notice a few things in the amendment as well as the original bill:
http://law.justia.com/codes/californ...125-12133.html
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/...d_sen_v96.html

Interestingly enough I couldn't find any text within the amendment or original bill that makes it a crime to remove or alter said microstamping technology after purchase. While it is already a federal offense to obscure/remove the serial number on a firearm we may need a court ruling as to whether that offense extends to this new microstamping.

Although with the current wording it does seem to include any firearms that are are sold used. Lacking a grandfather clause the law would make it a crime to resell any firearm that doesn't meet the new criteria.


And now for the devil's advocate portion of our post:

I wonder how effective this microstamping is in regards to reloaded casings. Unless you are policing only your brass (picking up spent casings at the range) you're bound to end up with casings with someone else's engravings, how muddled would the reapplied marks be.

Beyond that one could, in theory, utilize a brass catcher (http://www.amazon.com/Brass-Catcher-.../dp/B00J4VIVCK) and drop casings collected from other owners at the shooting range to hinder police investigations.

A another law which can easily be circumvented by clever criminals. Simply using a revolver would be one way.

[TZucchini]

Considering they may have to modify their tooling and assembly process, yes, the firearms manufacturer that has to implement the etched firing pin has a better ability to estimate their costs than the company who merely etches the pin. Spoken with true ignorance again, PRE.

OK. So while I have actual, observable evidence, you have a bunch of maybe's and what if's. Sounds like our usual line of discussion.

This doesn't prove anything, except what I already said: the patent expired. Lets see another company besides NanoMark that is actually selling this technology not just more of this typical PRE911 "you can't prove a negative so I'm right looooooooooooooool."

Let's not forget what your original claim was. The same claim that you've been unable to provide a shred of evidence for: "There is a sole supplier of the technology, so it's going to be expensive."

There will not be a sole supplier of the technology. This is demonstrably false.

Beyond that one could, in theory, utilize a brass catcher (http://www.amazon.com/Brass-Catcher-.../dp/B00J4VIVCK) and drop casings collected from other owners at the shooting range to hinder police investigations.

The technology isn't going to be perfect. It's not going to work 100% of the time. But we have several major law enforcement agencies and organizations throwing support behind this technology.

And your question of cartridge seeding has been addressed thoroughly by sources provided:

"Theoretically, there is nothing to prevent criminals from using this tactic now, in order to discourage potential ballistic matches through NIBIN. Nonetheless, reports of such “seeding” occurring are extremely rare at best. In the urgency under which crimes are committed, most criminals fail to do things as simple as wearing gloves to hide fingerprints. Few offenders ever have the time or presence of mind to “dress” a crime scene following the commission of a violent crime."