Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

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.

There is conflicting opinions on the costs. You're engaging in your typical confirmation bias and only citing opinions that fit into the argument you believed to be true before you started posting. Typical.

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?

What vendors? Produce a single company other than NanoMark that offers the technology to microstamp a firing pin and I will happily agree that there is more than one vendor. You have done nothing but boast about your position (per usual.)

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."

I like how you haven't quoted any of this, you've just paraphrased and made up your own quotes. Pathetic.

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?

No, I didn't. More lying.

Again, the idea is sound, the implementation is junk. Have you seen how the radial coding works? It's easily marred and doesn't transfer well. I mean, I know you're typically uninformed, but this is a new low for you.

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!!!!

Nice false equivalency.

Is "conspiracy theory" your new buzz word, or something? There is no downside to microstamping LEO firearms. The only upside is to conceal illegal activity.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

PRE911 engages in flagrant confirmation bias.

[lockedout]

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

There are so many ways to circumvent microstamping that it just becomes a tax for law abiding citizens and is of no consequence to the criminal.

[TZucchini]

I like how you haven't quoted any of this, you've just paraphrased and made up your own quotes. Pathetic.

I paraphrased and made up my own quotes? That's a direct claim.

Are you saying that you didn't type those exact words which I've quoted?

- - - Updated - - -

There are so many ways to circumvent microstamping that it just becomes a tax for law abiding citizens and is of no consequence to the criminal.

All these ways have already been addressed. You can pretend that they haven't...but they have.

And again. No one is claiming microstamping will work 100% of the time. Just that it's a valuable tool that can help police officers solve crimes.

[Altrec]

OK. So you were wrong about the cost estimate being for the vendor, and not the manufacturer. Now you're bringing up
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.

Forgive me if I don't believe the people that are salivating over the idea of laws that force other people to buy and use their technology. I am far more likely to believe the people that actually manufacture the guns that will have to include this tech saying it will greatly increase the price. Microstamping manufactures can say it will be inexpensive, but they are not the ones having to manufacture the guns and install the equipment and as such have no idea what the prices involved will actually be.

[lockedout]

And again. No one is claiming microstamping will work 100% of the time. Just that it's a valuable tool that can help police officers solve crimes.

In your opinion how effective will it be? Seems like a gun registry to me.

[Tinykong]

I paraphrased and made up my own quotes? That's a direct claim.

Are you saying that you didn't type those exact words which I've quoted?

I like how you didn't respond to anything else except this. Looks like your made up bullshit is indefensible.

Progress!

[TZucchini]

I like how you didn't respond to anything else except this. Looks like your made up bullshit is indefensible.

Progress!

Everything else has already been address. You didn't make any new points. The evidence shows microstamping will be inexpensive and there will be no sole supplier. Period.


Now answer the question. You claimed that I paraphrased and made up my own quotes.

Are you saying that you didn't type those exact words which I've quoted?

[Tinykong]

Everything else has already been address. You didn't make any new points. The evidence shows microstamping will be inexpensive and there will be no sole supplier. Period.

So, you agree, there currently are not multiple suppliers, merely the opportunity for other suppliers to exist.

[TZucchini]

So, you agree, there currently are not multiple suppliers, merely the opportunity for other suppliers to exist.

I have no idea if there are currently multiple suppliers. The law is brand new. What I do know, and have said all along, is that this will not be a sole source industry.


Now answer the question that you've dodged twice: You claimed that I paraphrased and made up my own quotes.

Are you saying that you didn't type those exact words which I've quoted?

(You're going to dodge this again because it's wrong. And it's impossible for you to admit when you're wrong.)

[lockedout]

I have no idea if there are currently multiple suppliers. The law is brand new. What I do know, and have said all along, is that this will not be a sole source industry.


Now answer the question that you've dodged twice: You claimed that I paraphrased and made up my own quotes.

Are you saying that you didn't type those exact words which I've quoted?

(You're going to dodge this again because it's wrong. And it's impossible for you to admit when you're wrong.)

Hey is this the same "California Police Chiefs Association" you kept touting around as if there opinion was gospel?

"However, the theory that the law will actually help solve crimes remains untested. A spokesperson for Long Beach’s Police Forensic Sciences Services Division said the department has no such statistics because there are no firearms that actually use the technology yet. And even law enforcement authorities have wavered on whether it will work: The California Police Chiefs Association, which originally supported the legislation in 2007, changed its position in 2009."

WHOA WHOA WHOA “Publicly available, peer-reviewed studies conducted by independent research organizations conclude that the technology does not function reliably and that criminals can remove the markings easily in mere seconds,” the California Police Chiefs Association said in a letter to then state Attorney General and current Gov. Jerry Brown.

Case closed guys there was a peer reviewed study done, surely you can't argue with the science?

[TZucchini]

Hey is this the same "California Police Chiefs Association" you kept touting around as if there opinion was gospel?

No, it's not. I cited the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Nice try though.

Case closed guys there was a peer reviewed study done, surely you can't argue with the science?

Surely you can supply those studies?

[lockedout]

No, it's not. I cited the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Nice try though.

Well the California Police Chiefs Association who is actually in California supported it but then realized it was worthless. So if the police who are actually trying to solve these crimes think it's a bad idea why even enact it? Not to mention there hasn't been one new handgun sold in California since this was enacted.

- - - Updated - - -

Surely you can supply those studies?

http://scopeny.org/ARCHIVES/PositionStatements/SCOPE-Microstamping.pdf

[TZucchini]

Well the California Police Chiefs Association who is actually in California supported it but then realized it was worthless. So if the police who are actually trying to solve these crimes think it's a bad idea why even enact it? Not to mention there hasn't been one new handgun sold in California since this was enacted.

And there's other police associations in California that do support microstamping.

And frankly, for the CPCA to say the marking can be removed in "mere seconds", is a complete oversimplification.

Furthermore, that myth has been addressed:

"Microstamp-equipped weapons have several “counter measures” to prevent tampering by common criminals. These include redundant gear and radial marks on the firing pin, as well as marks on the breech face of the firearm. Various technologies exist today to harden firearm surfaces that carry microstamped information. The gun industry could choose to implement such technologies. Previous history, however, shows that it may not be necessary. Criminals do not typically alter guns that are used in crime. Furthermore, the redundant markings on the breech face are difficult to access, and require labquality microscopy to ensure they have been removed successfully. An individual would need intimate knowledge of firearms and microstamping, plus the appropriate tools, in order to render the technology ineffective. These tools are certainly not “household items,” nor would the common street criminal be expected to have the knowledge necessary to defeat the technology."

http://scopeny.org/ARCHIVES/Position...rostamping.pdf

That's not an independent, peer reviewed study. It's not even a study.

- - - Updated - - -

Well the California Police Chiefs Association who is actually in California supported it but then realized it was worthless.

I actually don't see evidence of them withdrawing support. In fact, the quotation is questions starts off with:

"We support further research of microstamping in light of the new information that has surfaced since California passage of the legislation."

Looks like a bunch of misinformation from lockedout.

[TITAN308]

I am amazed at how some naive people can be. Just when I think the ceiling has been reached, it gets worse.

[TZucchini]

I am amazed at how some naive people can be.

That's something we certainly agree on.

[Tinykong]

I have no idea if there are currently multiple suppliers. The law is brand new. What I do know, and have said all along, is that this will not be a sole source industry.

So, my statement is true. NanoMark had the patent and was the sole supplier of the technology. You are just guessing that other suppliers will get into the market. Glad we cleared that up.

Now answer the question that you've dodged twice: You claimed that I paraphrased and made up my own quotes.

Are you saying that you didn't type those exact words which I've quoted?

(You're going to dodge this again because it's wrong. And it's impossible for you to admit when you're wrong.)

I don't know, you didn't quote them. I do know, however, that you're using the posts out of context in your typical attempt at making up a position to argue against. I never claimed there was a monopoly, I never claimed that organized crime will tamper with crime scenes nor did I claim that microstamping will be expensive. I said that there is a sole supplier, so the technology will be expensive. You are taking that post to mean it will always be expensive. It currently is expensive according to firearms manufacturer's because there is not a competitive market place.

There certainly could be, but there currently isn't despite your repeated blathering that there are multiple suppliers.

It would really help if, when you get this confused, you would just ask for clarity rather than going on the offensive and trying to score PRE911 internet points so you can pat yourself on the back.

[Mayhem]

It´s always fun to see tiny struggle with his post history.

[Rukentuts]

It´s always fun to see tiny struggle with his post history.

It is nice how Pre911's laborious efforts keep him confined to this one thread, however.

[Tinykong]

It is nice how Pre911's laborious efforts keep him confined to this one thread, however.

Actually, I like posting here because you stopped, it's refreshing. It's funny to me when Mayhem keeps posting about me even though he's on ignore. I imagine him just yelling at the wall with no one listening.

Or maybe the posts have just been deleted, I'm not sure.

[Mayhem]

I don't know, you didn't quote them. I do know, however, that you're using the posts out of context in your typical attempt at making up a position to argue against.

You only know what you´ve typed if someone uses the "reply with quote" function? But even if you can´t remember what you´ve posted, you´re certain that you´ve been quoted out of context.

The last part is even better. That mr "making up positions to argue against" is talking of typical attempt at making up a position to argue against is screaming hypocrite.

Thanks for the laughs.

- - - Updated - - -

It is nice how Pre911's laborious efforts keep him confined to this one thread, however.

That is very true. You can simply go back to this thread to have a nice chuckle and then have serious discussions in another.