It's a real shame firing pins are not a user replaceable item. Oh, wait...

cman: Hero tag on vacation?

What's your justification for not wanting guns used in crimes to be more identifiable? What possible detriment could this have on a legitimate gun owner short of the possibility of a very small increase in the cost of a firearm?

And on a directly related subject, what's your opinion on laws aimed at requiring gun owners to report a lost of stolen firearm to police within a set time period?

I guess the pants wetting pussies are still terrified that someone, somewhere might posses a firearm?

Nice to see that some things just don't change.

devildog123: I would think that 10 seconds and a Dremel tool would "accidentally" mar that number badly enough that you couldn't read it.

There's a simple and obvious solution to this: outlaw Dremels.

And, like many gun laws, even if this were implemented, it would be useless because of grandfather clauses.

devildog123: I would think that 10 seconds and a Dremel tool would "accidentally" mar that number badly enough that you couldn't read it.

The intent of this law has nothing to do with actual identification of firearms used in crimes and everything to do with raising the cost and liability for the manufacturers of the firearms.

Typical pussified passive aggressive bullshiat from the hoplophobes.

I don't get it, this isn't anti gun, it's a measure to improve the ability of police to match a bullet/shell at a crime scene back to the weapon that fired it.

It doesn't infringe on your ability to own a gun or use one.

The downside of the law is well, it sounds easy to get around. Just change your firing pin/barrel to one without the codes on them, then switch back to the original ones and destroy the others with a blow torch. Likewise, the number of stamped guns to unstamped would be huge, and thus only new guns would carry this. You'd start seeing a preference for older, used guns among criminals, which are likely to be stolen anyways.

Splinshints:
And on a directly related subject, what's your opinion on laws aimed at requiring gun owners to report a lost of stolen firearm to police within a set time period?

If I have many firearms and I don't take each one out and sleep with it every night, I could easily see someone not noticing that a gun went missing. Heck, even if I have a few guns, I could easily see someone not noticing a gun for a few weeks/months unless it was my daily-carry weapon or I go shooting quite often. If instead I go out shooting once every few months, it'd be very easy to not know it's gone.

I see a market for replacement firing pins opening up.

Because its a guns thread

Even though the currently applicable iterpretation of the second amendment upholds private citizen gun rights, I disagree with that interpretation.

I don't think guns should be illegal. You should be able to bear arms. I like guns. I just don't think it should be a right.

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: It's a real shame firing pins are not a user replaceable item. Oh, wait...

bears.jpg
bears.jpg
bears.jpg


This is like requiring an ankle-monitoring bracelet be attached to a person's shoe.

Typical small penis gun nut: We can't possibly prevent all gun crimes so we shouldn't even try.

Antimatter:
It doesn't infringe on your ability to own a gun or use one..

I agree, it doesn't infringe your rights.

It's just pointless. As you pointed out, it's quite easy to work around this "problem". So why have a law in the first place that will do nothing but drive costs up for a perceived benefit that likely isn't there?

cman: Those who ask for reasonable regulations for a basic right are fools.

Yeah, there's never been any reasonable restrictions on other Constitutionally protected rights.

sinschild: devildog123: I would think that 10 seconds and a Dremel tool would "accidentally" mar that number badly enough that you couldn't read it.

The intent of this law has nothing to do with actual identification of firearms used in crimes and everything to do with raising the cost and liability for the manufacturers of the firearms.

Typical pussified passive aggressive bullshiat from the hoplophobes.

so basically, a device that already costs hundreds to thousands shouldn't have to make any modifications that will be easily spread, cost wise, over the cost of future units, because it may cost them short term profits.

Sounds like the argument we saw from automobiles when they started requiring seatbeats, or trains when they started requiring air brakes and auto-couplings, or guns when they started requiring serial numbers.

It's a shame that most gun control over the last 30 years have been targeted at law-abiding owners of legally-owned guns.

Look at the crime statistics for legally-owned guns. It's astonishingly low.

Splinshints: cman: Hero tag on vacation?

What's your justification for not wanting guns used in crimes to be more identifiable? What possible detriment could this have on a legitimate gun owner short of the possibility of a very small increase in the cost of a firearm?

And on a directly related subject, what's your opinion on laws aimed at requiring gun owners to report a lost of stolen firearm to police within a set time period?

It's the cost increase. Why should I be forced to pay to have my gun be identifiable when the people who are going to use them for crime can circumvent this tech with a bit of sandpaper.

A friend of mine had his .270 stolen some time ago. It was in a gun case in the basement. He went to clean it (after many years sitting idle) and found the case empty. He has no idea who took the gun or when. Guess he's a criminal in your eyes.

max_pooper: Typical small penis gun nut: We can't possibly prevent all gun crimes so we shouldn't even try.

"We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do this."

Splinshints: What possible detriment could this have on a legitimate gun owner short of the possibility of a very small increase in the cost of a firearm?

That's the absolutely wrong perspective. The government imposes upon its citizens - sometimes justifiably, sometimes not. The government must be the on with the burden of proof showing how this improves the lives of the citizens such that additional regulation is warranted.

And the extent of the law isn't just "put a mark on the firing pin", because (as mentioned upthread), damaging or switching out your firing pin would negate any benefit...as would using a grandfathered pin without such markings.

I'd much rather see time and effort spent enforcing extant gun law than brainstorming new ways to harass people outside the illegal gun market.

Mr. Eugenides: Why should I be forced to pay to have my gun be identifiable when the people who are going to use them for crime can circumvent this tech with a bit of sandpaper.

Why wouldn't you want to be able to definitively prove that your gun wasn't used in a shooting?

CPennypacker: Even though the currently applicable iterpretation of the second amendment upholds private citizen gun rights, I disagree with that interpretation.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Antimatter: so basically, a device that already costs hundreds to thousands shouldn't have to make any modifications that will be easily spread, cost wise, over the cost of future units, because it may cost them short term profits.

No- it's because they're going to just pass these costs directly onto consumers.

This is the classic gun control problem- criminals who know they're going to use a gun for crime are just going to circumvent this technology. This kind of thing is ONLY going to be effective in accidental shootings or crimes of passion, and then any sane criminal is just going to dispose of the gun afterwards anyway.

Just like TFA says, this only lets them establish a reliable link between shell casings and the gun, IF they already have the gun in their possession. At any rate, if they already have the gun in their possession they already have reliable methods for identifying what gun fired what bullet.

max_pooper: Typical small penis gun nut: We can't possibly prevent all gun crimes so we shouldn't even try.

I'm all for sane gun crime legislation, but this bill is a stinker. It's ridiculously easy to get around for all but the least competent criminal, and those are the kind of criminal likely to screw up in all manner of other ways and get caught. A near-zero benefit isn't worth the burden to either the consumer or the industry--unless the intended consequence wasn't identifying criminals but implementing a de facto gun tax.

cman: Those who ask for reasonable regulations for a basic right are fools.

I dunno, the whole "don't yell fire in a crowded theatre" seems like a great idea to me.

give me doughnuts: Every knife must now be made with a unique identifiable edge pattern because it might be used to stab someone.

Every woman looking to have an abortion must be made to watch a 10 minute video of happy, frolicking babies just in case she doesn't REALLY want it. It's in her best interest to not make a decision she'll regret!

qorkfiend:
Why wouldn't you want to be able to definitively prove that your gun wasn't used in a shooting?

If I feel the hankering to be able to prove that, then I will, on my own volition, go by a gun that has this feature so I can prove my own gun wasn't used.

Making it a law is ridiculous.

sprawl15: CPennypacker: Even though the currently applicable iterpretation of the second amendment upholds private citizen gun rights, I disagree with that interpretation.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Like life?

max_pooper: Typical small penis gun nut: We can't possibly prevent all gun crimes so we shouldn't even try.

Trolling aside, this kind of stuff is dangerous because we should be spending our time and effort on gun control strategies that work. Stuff like this, although interesting, isn't going to be any more effective than standard police work already is.

And no one would possibly pick up discarded shells to leave at crime scenes.

kidgenius: I see a market for replacement firing pins opening up.

cman: Simply speaking, it really does not work

This is a bogus argument. Would you call fingerprinting useless because gloves exist? The fact that it's not a perfect solution doesn't mean it doesn't have benefits. You CAN remove the markings. And people CAN wear gloves when they break into a house. Yet, often, they don't, so it's useful.

kidgenius: I could easily see someone not noticing that a gun went missing

The laws typically require reporting within a timeframe that begins when you notice the item missing. If somebody breaks your door and comes in,you're going to inventory things to see what was taken. If somebody steals it during the course of visiting your house, obviously that's different, but when you do notice, why shouldn't you be obligated to report it?

cman: It adds regulations upon a law abiding citizen

This is not unusual in any facet of life. It applies to many other things including explosives, dangerous chemicals and even certain types of machinery. Guns have the potential to be very dangerous. It is justifiable to regulate them and so it is justifiable to have discussions about the cost/benefit of things like this.

cman: Those who ask for reasonable regulations for a basic right are fools

Do you believe that inciting a deadly panic for no reason but your personal amusement would be unpunishable because it's "free speech"?

Mr. Eugenides: Guess he's a criminal in your eyes.

If you're just going to arbitrarily assign my opinions to me, I'm not going to respond to you anymore. This thread will have plenty of opportunities for you to create lousy strawmen with others if that's your intent.

Fubini: Antimatter: so basically, a device that already costs hundreds to thousands shouldn't have to make any modifications that will be easily spread, cost wise, over the cost of future units, because it may cost them short term profits.

No- it's because they're going to just pass these costs directly onto consumers.

This is the classic gun control problem- criminals who know they're going to use a gun for crime are just going to circumvent this technology. This kind of thing is ONLY going to be effective in accidental shootings or crimes of passion, and then any sane criminal is just going to dispose of the gun afterwards anyway.

Just like TFA says, this only lets them establish a reliable link between shell casings and the gun, IF they already have the gun in their possession. At any rate, if they already have the gun in their possession they already have reliable methods for identifying what gun fired what bullet.

Actually, it talks about how current ballistics aren't guaranteed to be accurate, and how they could track the gun by just the casing, even if they don't have the gun itself.

Again, i'm just not seeing how this is a major affront to gun rights. This sounds like a knee-jerk reaction from the libertarians and gun fetish folks to anything that dares put any sort of requirement on a gun maker, sacred cows that they are. And I say that as a gun owner myself.

cman: DammitIForgotMyLogin: cman: Those who ask for reasonable regulations for a basic right are fools.

So you would advocate for the rights of paranoid schizophrenics with felony convictions for violent crimes to own artillery pieces?

Oh, please. This legislation was designed as an anti-gun law meant to push one's ideology upon the people that no one but the Government should possess such weapons.

So you do advocate for the rights of paranoid schizophrenics with felony convictions for violent crimes to own guns? After all, those who ask for reasonable regulations for a basic right are fools.

"Such a mandate could force Remington to reconsider its commitment to the New York market altogether," said Teddy Novin, a company spokesman.

It's not about apprehending murderers. It's not about protecting rights. It's all about the cheese.

Thanks Mr. Novin for showing your company's true priorities.

not a terrible idea, but not one that could be effective as so many have pointed out.

cman: Splinshints: cman: Hero tag on vacation?

What's your justification for not wanting guns used in crimes to be more identifiable? What possible detriment could this have on a legitimate gun owner short of the possibility of a very small increase in the cost of a firearm?

And on a directly related subject, what's your opinion on laws aimed at requiring gun owners to report a lost of stolen firearm to police within a set time period?

Simply speaking, it really does not work. It adds regulations upon a law abiding citizen designed by those who want to outright ban firearms, but cannot do so due to the constitutionality of such a ban.

Those who ask for reasonable regulations for a basic right are fools. Just like those who want to stop abortion by regulating the shiat out of it, and they use the justification of "reasonable regulation" to stop a constitutionally protected act.

Yeah, what's reason got to do with the bill of rights anyway!

sprawl15: And the extent of the law isn't just "put a mark on the firing pin", because (as mentioned upthread), damaging or switching out your firing pin would negate any benefit...as would using a grandfathered pin without such markings.

The other issue they don't seem to have thought through is the fact that this technology only marks the bullet casing, and as such can only be used to demonstrate that a certain firearm was fired in a certain place at a certain time. It CANNOT tell you what the gun was shot at.

If you find shell casings at a crime scene you've already got more than enough evidence to link a particular gun to those shell casings, I'm not sure how this makes that process better.

Reasonable regulation is fine.

This isn't that though.