Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

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.

No, you have your opinion (which is rooted in ignorance, per usual) and are waving it around like it's a fac

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.

It was patented, and expired. Unless you've got proof of another business offering this for sale, my assertion is true.

I like how you've used the phrase "there will not be" a sole supplier, rather than "there is not a sole supplier." Looks like you don't have any actual evidence.

I consider your claim rescinded.

[Stormdash]

Eh, without having the inclination, or willingness to spend good Westlaw/Lexis money, to find an exact answer, I'd be wary of there being some other state law not cited in your links that would cover aftermarket tampering. From the face value of the language, best I could infer is that if you could still permissibly remove the microstamping equipment, it would render it unlawful to so much as have the guy in the next lane hold the gun for you. I wouldn't encourage anybody to go tinkering if I were a CA attorney, personally.

In fairness, the microstamping law omitting revolvers isn't too much of an oversight since, unless there is an extensive shootout, the casings are leaving the scene with the shooter. Of course, microstamping has no bearing on anyone with the wits or opportunity to collect the casings even if fired from an automatic (it doesn't take a fancy device, it takes bending at the knee and looking around for them -- most homicides with a firearm aren't gun blazing shoot-outs in the street, after all). All the more reason of course that this is a very big stretch to deem an investigative aid so important that it justifies the infringement created by increases in cost and availability. More like its a state interest pretext for causing increases in cost and availability. Long term, I'm not sure how many manufacturers will be bothering with "CA complaint" if this is what it turns into. I didn't check, I'll admit, but I didn't notice a LEO exception to microstamping, which means even Glock (probably the most widely used LEO weapon) might decide it's not worth the hassle, as S&W and Ruger apparently already have.

[TZucchini]

No, you have your opinion (which is rooted in ignorance, per usual) and are waving it around like it's a fact.

No. I have evidence. Several different sources, all citing the cost between $0.50 to $8.00.

It was patented, and expired. Unless you've got proof of another business offering this for sale, my assertion is true.

Your assertion will be true when you provide empirical evidence for the statement "There is a sole supplier of the technology, so it's going to be expensive."

That's going to be incredibly difficult to do, since the inventors of the technology have openly stated that the firearm industry will have a "variety of options for selecting pre-qualified equipment suppliers."

Even the DOJ certified that "microstamping technology was available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by patent restrictions." The Federal Court ruled such as well.

There is not going to be a sole supplier of the technology. There is absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest so, and literally mountains of evidence to suggest otherwise.

[TITAN308]

California; the long standing joke of the firearm community. haha

[Tasttey]

I didn't check, I'll admit, but I didn't notice a LEO exception to microstamping, which means even Glock (probably the most widely used LEO weapon) might decide it's not worth the hassle, as S&W and Ruger apparently already have.

Section 12125, subsection (4) is the LEO exception clause.

[Tinykong]

No. I have evidence. Several different sources, all citing the cost between $0.50 to $8.00.

What does that have to do with the cost to the consumer or the cost to manufacturers? Nothing. Unless you're suggesting these businesses are going to sell them at a loss or for no profit?

Your assertion will be true when you provide empirical evidence for the statement "There is a sole supplier of the technology, so it's going to be expensive."

That's going to be incredibly difficult to do, since the inventors of the technology have openly stated that the firearm industry will have a "variety of options for selecting pre-qualified equipment suppliers."

Even the DOJ certified that "microstamping technology was available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by patent restrictions." The Federal Court ruled such as well.

There is not going to be a sole supplier of the technology. There is absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest so, and literally mountains of evidence to suggest otherwise.

You're asking me to prove a negative. There was a sole supplier who had a patent. That patent lapsed. If you want to show more people are offering it for sale, do it and stop posting the same illogical nonsense.

[lockedout]

Section 12125, subsection (4) is the LEO exception clause.

So LEO is exempt from microstamping? No wonder "several major law enforcement agencies and organizations throwing support behind this technology."

[Mayhem]

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.

That is a problem that can already happen.

[Tinykong]

So LEO is exempt from microstamping? No wonder "several major law enforcement agencies and organizations throwing support behind this technology."

It's like the long blue line isn't a thing.

[TZucchini]

What does that have to do with the cost to the consumer or the cost to manufacturers? Nothing. Unless you're suggesting these businesses are going to sell them at a loss or for no profit?

Right. It's going to cost the firearm manufacturer $0.50-$8.00, which will cause them to increase the cost of the firearm by $200. I'm guessing economics is not your strong suit.

You can buy a few handguns for less than $200. To believe that a simple laser engraving on the firing pin will increase the cost by more than the firearm itself is truly a sign of gullibility. Just spoon feeding what those angry firearm manufacturers are feeding you.

You're asking me to prove a negative. There was a sole supplier who had a patent. That patent lapsed. If you want to show more people are offering it for sale, do it and stop posting the same illogical nonsense.

I would laugh at this statement if it wasn't such a shining example of foolishness.

YOU are the one that has been asking ME to prove the negative.

I'm asking you to prove: "There is a sole supplier of the technology." - - That's a positive; prove "X" exists.

Here's the negative version: "Prove that they're not a sole suppliers of this technology." - - That's a negative; prove "X" doesn't exist.

Do you understand the difference? You're quite clearly incapable of providing evidence for your claim, so I think it's time you just give up on it. All evidence suggests there will not be a sole supplier. NO evidence suggests that there will be.

- - - Updated - - -

So LEO is exempt from microstamping? No wonder "several major law enforcement agencies and organizations throwing support behind this technology."

Conspiracy theories are not allowed on this site.

- - - Updated - - -

It's like the long blue line isn't a thing.

*Thin blue line.

And I would have no problem with police also having microstamp technology on their firearms. But to claim that they're only supporting it because they're exempt is exhibit A Conspiracy Theory. Not surprised you're high-fiving lockedout over it.

[Tinykong]

Right. It's going to cost the firearm manufacturer $0.50-$8.00, which will cause them to increase the cost of the firearm by $200. I'm guessing economics is not your strong suit.

You can buy a few handguns for less than $200. To believe that a simple laser engraving on the firing pin will increase the cost by more than the firearm itself is truly a sign of gullibility. Just spoon feeding what those angry firearm manufacturers are feeding you.

No, that's what it costs the vendor who performs the engraving. In your vast ignorance, you've overlooked the increased cost of machining, handling, assembly and design. Which is unsurprising, given your history of being woefully uninformed.

I would laugh at this statement if it wasn't such a shining example of foolishness.

YOU are the one that has been asking ME to prove the negative.

I'm asking you to prove: "There is a sole supplier of the technology." - - That's a positive; prove "X" exists.

Here's the negative version: "Prove that they're not a sole suppliers of this technology." - - That's a negative; prove "X" doesn't exist.

Do you understand the difference? You're quite clearly incapable of providing evidence for your claim, so I think it's time you just give up on it. All evidence suggests there will not be a sole supplier. NO evidence suggests that there will be.

I provided the evidence of my claim: the patent was held by NanoMark and has since expired. You could easily prove your claim by providing a link to another supplier other than NanoMark that offers microstamping. Just because someone can sell a widget doesn't mean they are selling a widget.

You're asking me to prove that other suppliers don't exist. That's impossible. You claimed there are multiple other vendors, yet provided evidence of none.

Conspiracy theories are not allowed on this site.

If you have a problem with a posts content, report it. Posting just to point out people are breaking the rules is against forum rules.

*Thin blue line.

And I would have no problem with police also having microstamp technology on their firearms. But to claim that they're only supporting it because they're exempt is exhibit A Conspiracy Theory. Not surprised you're high-fiving lockedout over it.

Are you only capable of making up arguments now? It's pathetic.

[TZucchini]

No, that's what it costs the vendor who performs the engraving. In your vast ignorance, you've overlooked the increased cost of machining, handling, assembly and design. Which is unsurprising, given your history of being woefully uninformed.

It's the "service" cost. If you knew anything about business, you'd know that a service cost is the cost to the purchaser of the technology, i.e. the firearm manufacturer.

There's no reason to believe they'd incur any other significant cost, or that they'd have to drastically change their assembly. The firing pin is no different than before, other than the fact that it contains a microscopic laser engraving. Nothing else has changed.

I provided the evidence of my claim: the patent was held by NanoMark and has since expired.

The fact that the patent expired is direct evidence against your "sole supplier" claim. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. It's a myth that's been thoroughly debunked.



But here's the real question, Tiny. If you believe that microstamping will be expensive. If you believe it will result in a monopolistic sole supplier. If you believe it will lead to organized crime seeding crime scenes with cartridges. If you believe that the tracing fails 80% of the time:

Then why the fuck do you have no problem with it?

I actually don't have a problem with micro stamping

This has to be the most hypocritical position you've taken in this thread.

/gameover

[Stormdash]

Pretty sure the "Gun Control Thread" working definition of conspiracy theory is "any motive, policy, or outcome that doesn't blow pure carbonated rainbows up the ass of the cause of gun control". I mean, it's that big of a leap that law enforcement is happier with getting exempted out of the expense and general hassle of those requirements than they are ideologically in favor of inflicting them on the citizenry?

[Rukentuts]

Pretty sure the "Gun Control Thread" working definition of conspiracy theory is "any motive, policy, or outcome that doesn't blow pure carbonated rainbows up the ass of the cause of gun control". I mean, it's that big of a leap that law enforcement is happier with getting exempted out of the expense and general hassle of those requirements than they are ideologically in favor of inflicting them on the citizenry?

He says, while ignoring all the studies.

[TZucchini]

Pretty sure the "Gun Control Thread" working definition of conspiracy theory is "any motive, policy, or outcome that doesn't blow pure carbonated rainbows up the ass of the cause of gun control". I mean, it's that big of a leap that law enforcement is happier with getting exempted out of the expense and general hassle of those requirements than they are ideologically in favor of inflicting them on the citizenry?

If someone wants to say "Oh no wonder the police support it; they're exempt!", they need to provide evidence supporting that claim. I'd think an attorney, of all people, would understand the usefulness and importance of evidence.

Perhaps the police support it because it will be a useful tool for solving crimes. There is evidence for that sentiment, by the way.

[Tinykong]

It's the "service" cost. If you knew anything about business, you'd know that a service cost is the cost to the purchaser of the technology, i.e. the firearm manufacturer.

There's no reason to believe they'd incur any other significant cost, or that they'd have to drastically change their assembly. The firing pin is no different than before, other than the fact that it contains a microscopic laser engraving. Nothing else has changed.

It could require additional assembly steps or precision, it could require additional handling, etc. You're completely ignoring all of this potential because you have to in order for your opinion to be validated. Per usual.

The fact that the patent expired is direct evidence against your "sole supplier" claim. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. It's a myth that's been thoroughly debunked.

No, it's not. It's proof that other people could offer microstamping. You said, explicitly, that there are multiple other vendors. You are lying again.

But here's the real question, Tiny. If you believe that microstamping will be expensive. If you believe it will result in a monopolistic sole supplier. If you believe it will lead to organized crime seeding crime scenes with cartridges. If you believe that the tracing fails 80% of the time:

Then why the fuck do you have no problem with it?

This has to be the most hypocritical position you've taken in this thread.

/gameover

See, this is what you continually do in this thread day after day, page after page: make up arguments for people.

I never said there was a monopoly. I never said microstamping will be expensive. I never said it will lead to seeding crime scenes. I said those are all things to consider when discussing whether or not this should be a law.

I think the concept is sound: the police should have access to more tools to solve crimes.

In your typical, hyperbolic, anti-gun foam-at-the-mouth tirade, you've been too busy making shit up to argue against that you can't even see that I agree with the idea, not with the implementation.

Per usual.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps the police support it because it will be a useful tool for solving crimes. There is evidence for that sentiment, by the way.

Then why exempt police? The only benefit is to conceal illegal police activity.

[TZucchini]

It could require additional assembly steps or precision, it could require additional handling, etc. You're completely ignoring all of this potential because you have to in order for your opinion to be validate. Per usual.

OK. So you were wrong about the cost estimate being for the vendor, and not the manufacturer. Now you're bringing up additional hypotheticals and what-if's like that's some kind of argument.

The evidence hasn't changed. Let me repeat it for you:

The developers of microstamping have testified that it would cost manufacturers between $0.50 and $1.00 per handgun to incorporate the technology. Laser Light Technologies, Inc. (LLTI) corroborated this in a September 2007 letter to Assemblyman Mike Feuer, the sponsor of AB-1471. LLTI noted that “even in the worst case scenario” the price per handgun would range between $0.50 and $3.00. LLTI concluded: “The laser process as transferred to LLTI by the microstamping inventors is clear-cut and when coupled with appropriate fixtures, the task of processing the firearm components will be both uncomplicated and cost effective.”

It doesn't get any more clear-cut than this. Microstamping will be inexpensive.

No, it's not. It's proof that other people could offer microstamping. You said, explicitly, that there are multiple other vendors. You are lying again.

Actually, I said "there are multiple companies that have the technology available." Which is a fact. It's also a fact that those vendors are unencumbered by patent issues. So yes, there will be multiple vendors. Unless you think our economy is no longer capitalistic?

I never said there was a monopoly.

You said: "There is a sole supplier of the technology." (pro-tip...that's a monopoly).

I never said microstamping will be expensive.

You said: "There is a sole supplier of the technology, so it's going to be expensive."

I never said it will lead to seeing crime scenes.

You said: "There also has been no mention of the increased cost of police having to deal with organized crime collecting shell casings and using them to obfuscate their criminal activities by sprinkling crime scenes with them."

I said those are all things to consider when discussing whether or not this should be a law.

No. You said, explicitly, that those things will happen. Everyone can read those statements and judge for themselves. Attempting to backtrack now is useless, and only makes you look silly.


You also didn't mention your claim that micro stamping fails 80% of the time. If that's the case, then why support it?

- - - Updated - - -

Then why exempt police? The only benefit is to conceal illegal police activity.

Look. More conspiracy theories!!! (those are against forum rules, by the way)

I'm not sure why the law exempted police officers. Why are they exempt from cell phone laws? Must be to conceal illegal activity!!!!

[TwoNineMarine]

OK. So you were wrong about the cost estimate being for the vendor, and not the manufacturer. Now you're bringing up additional hypotheticals and what-if's like that's some kind of argument.

The evidence hasn't changed. Let me repeat it for you:

The developers of microstamping have testified that it would cost manufacturers between $0.50 and $1.00 per handgun to incorporate the technology. Laser Light Technologies, Inc. (LLTI) corroborated this in a September 2007 letter to Assemblyman Mike Feuer, the sponsor of AB-1471. LLTI noted that “even in the worst case scenario” the price per handgun would range between $0.50 and $3.00. LLTI concluded: “The laser process as transferred to LLTI by the microstamping inventors is clear-cut and when coupled with appropriate fixtures, the task of processing the firearm components will be both uncomplicated and cost effective.”

It doesn't get any more clear-cut than this. Microstamping will be inexpensive.



Actually, I said "there are multiple companies that have the technology available." Which is a fact. It's also a fact that those vendors are unencumbered by patent issues. So yes, there will be multiple vendors. Unless you think our economy is no longer capitalistic?



You said: "There is a sole supplier of the technology." (pro-tip...that's a monopoly).



You said: "There is a sole supplier of the technology, so it's going to be expensive."



You said: "There also has been no mention of the increased cost of police having to deal with organized crime collecting shell casings and using them to obfuscate their criminal activities by sprinkling crime scenes with them."



No. You said, explicitly, that those things will happen. Everyone can read those statements and judge for themselves. Attempting to backtrack now is useless, and only makes you look silly.


You also didn't mention your claim that micro stamping fails 80% of the time. If that's the case, then why support it?

- - - Updated - - -



Look. More conspiracy theories!!! (those are against forum rules, by the way)

I'm not sure why the law exempted police officers. Why are they exempt from cell phone laws? Must be to conceal illegal activity!!!!

Aren't you supposed to consider the what-ifs and hypotheticals when discussing potential new laws or changing a law? Why is it so harassed on here when people do it? Just because it possibly goes against what you want/believe?

[Mayhem]

Aren't you supposed to consider the what-ifs and hypotheticals when discussing potential new laws or changing a law? Why is it so harassed on here when people do it? Just because it possibly goes against what you want/believe?

Sure and then you look for the facts to see what hypotheticals are worth talking about them at all.

[TZucchini]

Aren't you supposed to consider the what-ifs and hypotheticals when discussing potential new laws or changing a law? Why is it so harassed on here when people do it? Just because it possibly goes against what you want/believe?

The questions and hypotheticals have been answered. Tiny's arguing for the sake of arguing.