How The NRA Impeded The Boston Bomber Investigation

[Hissyspit]

http://www.nationalmemo.com/how-the-nra-impeded-the-boston-bomber-investigation/

How The NRA Impeded The Boston Bomber Investigation

April 20th, 2013 12:00 am
David Cay Johnston

The intense hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers illustrates another way that the National Rifle Association helps mass murderers — by delaying how quickly they can be identified.

The inability to quickly track the gunpowders in the Boston bombs is due to government policy designed and promoted by the NRA, which has found a way to transform every massacre associated with weapons into an opportunity for the munitions companies that sustain it to sell more guns, gunpowder and bullets.

The price for such delays was put on terrible display Friday morning when the two brothers, who had been caught on video placing the bombs, killed one police officer, wounded another and carjacked a motorist, creating conditions so unsafe that the 7th largest population center in America spent Friday on lockdown.

But for the NRA-backed policy of not putting identifiers known as taggants in gunpowder, law enforcement could have quickly identified the explosives used to make the bombs, tracking them from manufacture to retail sale. That could well have saved the life of Sean Collier, the 26-year-old MIT police officer who was gunned down Thursday night by the fleeing bomb suspects.

Had the suspects in the Boston bombings killed by slipping poison into bottled water or canned food at a factory, or lacing spinach in a field with a deadly chemical, it would have taken only minutes to a few hours to identify exactly where that food was manufactured and how it moved through the food chain. That would have quickly narrowed the search for suspects.

MORE AT LINK[p]

[Loudly]

1. Challenge the law on public safety grounds and get an appellate opinion.

Give the Court two choices.

Make the Court expressly uphold the importance of being able to engage in anonymous armed rebellion as a Constitutional right.

Or else make the Court strike the law down which protects the anonymity of bombers.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. It would make just as much sense if we go to court to outlaw Zombies

The 3M taggants are not safe in some usages, including in gun propellants. That is the position of National Academy of Science. Nothing has been brought forward since then for evaluation.

Since there is no law banning the use of taggants in gun powder, just the absence of a requirement, not sure what basis you are going to go to court.

[Loudly]

28. USA v. Clown College of Professors

Look it up.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. Were Zombies involved?

[Loudly]

30. Clowns and their Professors are up against the ropes.

If punching self righteous clowns is the baseline of rationale re-batallion.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. Is that you or Shares United claiming that?

[Riftaxe]

2. So it was gunpowder for a fact

and not a recipe from a pre-1962 encyclopedia?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. What explosive they used has not been announced by law enforcement

My WAG early on was smokeless powder. Others said black powder.

At least one DU poster has claimed it was announced as smokeless powder.

A pol said in an interview that the explosives had a tracer in it, which would mean it was not smokeless or black powder.

[sarisataka]

3. As if the other seven threads were not enough

Taggant History and Background
http://www.ime.org/dynamic.php?page_id=66

and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taggant

[Robb]

8. Wow, a Wikipedia article rife with "citation needed"

and an explosives manufacturing group's website.

Well, I'm sure convinced! What a bad idea taggants are!

[99Forever]

12. Good grief...

... these characters are pretty damn lame, aren't they?

More proof that gun culture IS a mental illness.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. How about the National Academy of Science Report?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101661115#post4

The IME citation does describe the safety issues that have been found with the 3M taggants in commercial explosives.

The Wiki article points out the difference between the two types of taggants (detection vs identification), something that many here have confused.

Until the safety issue is solved, identification taggants cannot be included in commercial explosives or propellants.

[Robb]

16. LOL

You didn't look to see who provided their data, did you?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. I read it in its entirety when it first came out and reviewed it again recently

The reps of the authors and reviewers are quite good.

The safety issues are clearly valid. Presumptively could be resolved but no one is choosing to do so. When they are, I have no problem with identification taggants though they are not the magic bullet some claim they are.

[Robb]

18. Why doubt the industry's own data, right?

I mean, the tobacco companies had no incentive to lie, right?

[CreekDog]

21. You on duty early sir

So bright and obvious this morning!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. One does what one can to keep

the yapping hounds at bay

[CreekDog]

23. You oppose taggants b/c you carry water for the NRA

That's the common theme in your gun posts (conservatism is the other in all).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. I have said the exact opposite repeatedly...that I have no issue with safe ones

The 3M ones clearly cause problems in commercial explosives and propellants. If safe ones were available, I have no problems with them being used, though the expectations some have are well in excess of what they can do.

Yapping dogs yap...

[CreekDog]

32. You posted here that whales were not threatened with extinction, but you think taggins are unsafe?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. The existing 3M taggants have been demonstrated as unsafe in commercial explosives and propellants

Doesn't mean that safe identification taggants cannot be developed and deployed.

[CreekDog]

34. so you stunk up this thread because you actually support "safe" taggants

no you don't.

if you did, you wouldn't have posted the way you did. it wouldn't have taken a ton of posts for you to mention that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. I brought the technical reality to this topic and demolished the bad fiction

I have said repeated in the many threads on this topic that I have no problems with safe taggants. However, they are no where near the magic bullet some people think it will be for obvious reasons.

[CreekDog]

36. No, in this thread you snarked and digressed all to mock the idea of using taggants

only now you say, "well, I support safe taggants".

BS. you tried to make this thread go off the rails because when it comes down to it, you don't want this to happen.

you are carrying water for the NRA, as always.

and you are posting conservatively, as usual.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. Being concerned for safety is conservative? Then the TX explosion must be your idea of progressive

Tech matters. Some deal with it better than others. Your opposition to facts remind me of the global warning deniers. If its inconvenient you don't like it.

[CreekDog]

40. You're ashamed of your stance against taggants, that's why you're afraid to state it here

even though hours ago, you posted a message against the very use of taggants, the very purpose of them, opposing their purpose, not just on safety issues.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2727382

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. Nonsense. I oppose the 3M taggants for safety. Been very clear about that on multiple threads

I have also stated that I presume others could be developed that are safe and I do not oppose them though I don't think they will be as much of a magic bullet than many assume due to the logistics I brought up in that post. Nothing in that post says any different than that. Nothing to be ashamed of in the least. They are simply not going to do what some people think they will.

My stand is consistent. I may now have gone through it in detail in every post in every thread, but nothing has changed in my position since the subject of taggants was brought up.

[sarisataka]

27. It was more educational

than arguementive.

If you read any of the other threads on this exact subject you would see my position is totally in favor of taggants, even given the limitations noted in these article.

My only caveat is that they are safe in the product they are added to...

[uponit7771]

38. we need 7 more

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. Few of them have started out truthful

[newmember]

4. If gun powder had it how would it work in a cartridge case?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Testing showed safety problems with the 3M plastic taggants

and nothing else has been brought forward since.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. This has been pretty well debunked

Nat. Academy of Science report recommended against this due to safety issues associated with the 3M taggants. Commercial explosive manufacturers also worked against it for that and liability reasons. No alternatives have been brought forth since.

A single lot of powder get parceled out and sold to 25,000 or more people, normally in one pound or half pound containers all over the country. Taggants would not reduce that number in the least and unless it is a quite rare powder would not have aided in this situation whatsoever. The claim that they could have been tracked quickly is clearly incorrect.

[Robb]

11. It's called Class Evidence. Things like blood type.

Or a paint chip.

Narrowing to 25,000 people would be an investigative tool that would fit into the "very damn useful" end of class evidence.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Those purchasers are untracked, the containers, unseralized. No practical means

exist to track the millions of containers sold each year.

It turns out that powders can be tracked like car paint. Like paint, despite the best efforts of manufacturers for absolute standardization, there are minute differences between between batches of the same propellant. Those are known to law enforcement. The best way to determine if a particular person used a particular propellant is to evaluate remnants taken from them and the bomb. I

[malaise]

6. It is quite frightening that the gun manufacturers are now in charge of

public policy and public safety.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Actually it is a safety thing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101661115#post4

[Robb]

19. Hardly. The explosives manufacturers fear liability.

Any information from them should be considered to be, charitably, biased.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. There have clearly been demonstrated safety issues with the 3M taggants

and there is nothing else being offered at this point

[dairydog91]

24. Wow, more of this hysteria?

But for the NRA-backed policy of not putting identifiers known as taggants in gunpowder, law enforcement could have quickly identified the explosives used to make the bombs, tracking them from manufacture to retail sale. That could well have saved the life of Sean Collier, the 26-year-old MIT police officer who was gunned down Thursday night by the fleeing bomb suspects.

So, just making stuff up? Assuming that gunpowder manufacturers were putting unique taggants in each lot of gunpowder, the most that police would have would be a vague idea of which retailers purchased from that lot. Retailers themselves have no requirement to track who purchases gunpowder, which is usually sold over the counter with no ID checks. There was never a taggant system proposed that would put a unique signature on each jug of powder sold or would otherwise have allowed the sort of individualized tracking people seem to be imagining now.

[Dreamer Tatum]

26. This is horseshit - they were caught in 4 days, not 4 weeks. nt

[CreekDog]

41. Well in that time, a police officer was shot and killed by the suspects

not only that. though the suspects were found, they weren't found through identification of the explosive they used...these rules prevented that from being used to identify or trace them.

in other words, we're lucky authorities found other ways to find these guys, because one avenue, an important one, has been opposed by the NRA and is thus not available to law enforcement.