General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs the NRA helping bombers get away with their crimes?
The concept is called a taggant. Taggants for explosives are microscopic particles of polymer or metal designed to survive an explosive, so they can be used to identify the maker of the explosive, maybe even a lot number.
Taggants were conspicuous in the Boston Marathon -- due to their absence, as MSNBC has stated:
So, why does the gun lobby have its panties in a twist over putting something in gunpowder that might help solve crimes?
As the 60s song goes: "Paranoia strikes deep!"
As stated, the NRA did allow the use of taggants in plastic explosives (Damned decent of them!); but, they have twice resisted any attempts to mandate their use in smokeless powder. The first time was in the 1980s, after a wave of bombings by the Weather Underground and Puerto Rican nationalists.
But the NRA successfully lobbied to have black and smokeless gunpowders exempted from the explosives required to include taggant markers. Members of Congressincluding then-New York Rep. Charles Schumer tried and failed again after the 1993 New York City truck bombing of the World Trade Center. The Clinton administration renewed the call for legislation requiring identifying taggants right after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, whose 18th anniversary is Friday.
But the gun lobby's army of lobbyists was mobilized again, ready to earn their obscene salaries and a place in the 8th Circle of Hell, and of course, Congress caved again, even after the Oklahoma City bombing, which claimed 168 lives including 19 children under the age of 6.
Lawrence O'Donnell addressed this last night:
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Lint Head
(15,064 posts)They need to be taken apart. Wayne La Piss Ant is directly responsible for many deaths.
Response to Lint Head (Reply #2)
onenote This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to onenote (Reply #5)
Lint Head This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Lint Head (Reply #8)
onenote This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to onenote (Reply #9)
Lint Head This message was self-deleted by its author.
onenote
(42,374 posts)My previous response was uncalled for. It was just my frustration with results of this week's vote coming out. As indicated, I've been connected with this issue both on a personal and policy level for a very long time. I knew we weren't going to get legislation through both houses but I had hoped we could surprise folks and get it through the Senate. Sadly, the only way we're ever going to make progress is if we can gain the support of people who are neither totally for nor totally against guns. The problem,and its not fair, but its inescapable, is that just as when the other side makes over the top claims about what we are proposing we react adversely, the people we are trying to attract get wary when they see over the top claims such as claims that NRA is a terrorist organization etc. When you're trying to convince someone that they should join with you over their initial instincts, telling them that if they don't they're supporting a terrorist (and that their friends that aren't convinced yet are themselves terrorists) isn't a productive strategy. Do I wish we could just roll over the opposition, sure. Does decades of experience tell me otherwise. Unfortunately so.
Anyway, with that explanation, let me again apologize. I've deleted my earlier posts.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Government sponsored research in the 1970s and early 1980s found taggants to be potentially very dangerous, as they were found to increase chemical activity and prompt spontaneous combustion when mixed with some propellants. Nothing has been done to develop different taggants that do not have those problems.
The law enforcement benefits of tagging black and smokeless powders are also questionable. Consider that a single batch of gunpowder is normally distributed in half-pound or one-pound cans which can end up all over the country in the hands of 25,000 or more users. Also such small amounts are not tracked. If there is a person of interest, any gunpowder in their possession can be chemically matched to what was used, providing the same information as taggants.
I don't have a problem with taggants provided they are truly inert and safe. However, we need to have realistic expectations for them. They are not a magic bullet and will have a limited useful life.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)LongTomH
(8,636 posts)......I'm in favor of anything that will help us apprehend bombers. I think we can both cite sources for our points of view.
One source for taggants would be the Office of Technology Assessment study of taggants cited in this LA Times article from 1996:
An article from a 1996 Science News Online article discusses various technologies used in taggants, with discussions of both safety and efficacy. It mentioned a form of taggant known as a microtaggant:
The layers of color in the particles serve as a kind of bar code, identifying the manufacturer, the date of production, and the distributor of a batch of explosives, information that is stored in a database.
For easy detection and decoding, fluorescent and magnetic materials are added to the taggants. If a bomb contains tagged explosives, technicians can shine ultraviolet light to see whether there is any fluorescence among the debris. After scooping up debris samples, they collect the taggants with a magnet. Placing the taggants on a magnet orients them so that their colors are visible. The investigators can then read the colors with a simple light microscope.
According to Livesay, microtaggants have been used by the Swiss government since 1984 to solve 559 bombing cases.
Safety concerns have been raised: In 1979 a gunpowder manufacturer, Goex, sued 3M claiming that their microtaggants were responsible for an explosion at their Camden Park, Arkansas plant. 3M was "ultimately exonerated" in court.
The Swiss have had no safety problems with microtaggants, neither has the Aerospace Corp:
For packaged explosives like sticks of dynamite, "the safety issues were put to bed back then," Fuller says. In 1979, a bombing case in Baltimore was actually solved using the taggants. But then the explosive manufacturers began to back out, he adds, mostly for fear of being held legally liable for the damage done by their products.
I did find a link to an abstract for the 1980 OTA report on taggants.
Please note that I've included information from articles that discuss both pro and con about efficacy and safety so DUers can make up their own minds. I've concluded, from available evidence, that taggants, used with precautions, can be an aid to solving bombings (as the Swiss experience would indicate).
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Right now there is no off the shelf solution readily available for gun powder and black powder and there are serious concerns about the 3M style taggants. The examples cited are for explosives, not propellants and differences there are critical.
Should a safe one become available I would not oppose them should there be a reasonable demonstrated need.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)After all, keeping the police from arresting people that their years of real-world police experience tell them need arresting is aiding and abetting criminals. So it getting them legal representation, and questioning police and DA procedures, and outlawing confessions from "enhanced interrogation techniques". And don't even get me started on how many criminals are going free because the ACLU insists on "probable cause" and "due process".