A Sensible Safe Smart Gun Law - Guess Who Hates It

[DeSwiss]

The Young Turks ·Published on Jan 26, 2014

"Gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson refused Thursday to comply with California's controversial "microstamping" law, causing more of its products to fall off the state's permissible firearms list and be ineligible for sale.

In a two-page statement on its website, Smith & Wesson criticized Assembly Bill 1471, which requires new or redesigned semiautomatic weapons to carry microstamping technology, imprinting its make, model and serial number onto shell casings when a bullet is fired.

Though the law was passed in 2007, language in the legislation stipulated it would go into effect when the necessary technology was widely available. It was not enacted until May 2013."* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

*Read more here from Kate Mather / LA Times

[Hoyt]

1. Gun fanciers say it doesn't work. I think they are afraid they might pull a Zimmerman and

try to run away before they find all the spent casings.

The law-abiding gun owners also say it's easy for them to defeat the system or to just use a revolver, thus proving they really aren't law-abiding or responsible.

Anyway, by Smith & Wesson refusing to market in California, reducing supply of gunz to gun fanciers, I'd say microstamping is already a success. Enact it nationally.

[DeSwiss]

2. ''Gun fanciers say it doesn't work.''

Yeah, I remember John Cameron Swayze had Camels smoking in an ashtray on his desk on the teevee while giving us the news. I remember when the cigarette companies bought-off scientists, doctors and dentists and had them say that their product didn't cause cancer and other diseases.

- So the gun people are just continuing in the same fine, conservative fashion of all latter-day barbarians.....

[krispos42]

4. Still continuing with the fantasy that all gun owners...

...are just itching to legally kill somebody, aren't you? Of course, if they legally kill somebody (self-defense) why would they need to either collect spent casings or run away?


How about these reasons?


Mechanical wear.

Ease of bypass (a few seconds of fine sandpaper on a firing pin).

Requires registration to track the gun back to its owner.

Does not offer any aid if the gun is stolen from the registered owner.

Does not apply to revolvers.

Does not apply to police.



What this is is more of you side's cultural war. You want to make gun ownership socially taboo, expensive, intrusive, time-consuming, and burdensome. Naturally, of course, you despise people that work to use government power to make other rights socially taboo, expensive, intrusive, time-consuming, and burdensome, right?


And you're forgetting that this only apply to new or redesigned guns. S&W will simply not be introducing new models in California. Plenty of new guns of the established S&W line will be available.

[Android3.14]

6. Points well taken

Sounds like the law needs some serious modification.

[baldguy]

9. If those objections were valid, don't you think S&W would have referenced them in their anouncement?

Last edited Mon Jan 27, 2014, 09:53 AM - Edit history (1)

They just say that the microstamping is too costly (it isn't), and it wouldn't help solve crimes (it would). Even the gun manufacturers aren't buying your gun nut propaganda.

[krispos42]

10. In order for it to help solve crimes...

...the recovered casing from a crime scene would have to be traceable to the person that committed the crime.

Since career criminals don't register their guns, and generally get them illegally anyway, the hypothetical recovered casing with the markings on them will lead to a dead-end, just like if the criminal had left the gun lying next to the victim.

"Ah, this gun was stolen 5 years ago from a guy in Sacramento." That's really helpful, right?


And if the gun is actually used by the rightful, registered owner to commit a crime (say, killing a neighbor or a family member) then the information will be redundant.



It's lots of money and man-hours and effort for very little, if any, benefit.

I'll betcha a thousand Italian lira that more people get busted for having their paperwork on their microstamped guns out of order than are arrested solely because the microstamping led to a criminal that otherwise would have gotten away.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. I'll grant you this one.

S&W offered ballistic fingerprinting as an alternative. Which is actually a SHITTIER technology, as the barrel wears, the fingerprint changes. Maryland has not had anything resembling success with their money-pit ballistic fingerprint registry.

Microstamping is cheap, and sure, it can work. I am not opposed to it. But any expectation of it solving any crimes is likely over-blown. It might be marginally more successful than Maryland's BF database though. Which wouldn't be saying much.

Either tech isn't very onerous on the purchaser. Mild cost increase on the firearm is all. And it is fairly minor.

[Hoyt]

11. Gotta take the long-term view. Nothing works all the time, and if we don't start somewhere

we'll be sitting here a decade or so with another 100 million gunz in circulation with no safe-guards like micro-stamping. Sooner or later, we are going to have to bite the bullet like Australia did in 1996 by passing tough gun laws. You guys just keep trying to kick the can further down the road.

Besides, if it works only 5% of time that is an improvement.

Plus, your post shows again that gun fanciers aren't as law-abiding and responsible as the want us to believe. If you lived in California, would you file off the microstamping mechanism since it is so easy to do?

Not sure about your rant on a cultural war, but fortunately you can't ban me outside of the Gungeon if I hurt your gun sensibilities.

Have a nice day, hopefully gun free.

[krispos42]

17. So, for the record...

...you are for Australian-style mass confiscation and destruction of firearms currently owned by Americans.



I never said legal gun owners, I said criminals. I wouldn't file off the microstamping unless I was about to commit a crime. Which would negate the use of microstamping in the first place, wouldn't it?


The evidence, the very low NYC crime rate, would seem to indicate that racial profiling and "stop and frisk" works much larger than 5% of the time. Can the NYPD count on your support?

[Hoyt]

18. I'm for gun fanciers starting to act "responsibly" with society's best interests in mind, rather

than just talking about it and making excuses.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. At what point would you grant this technology is worthless?

Maryland has spent 2.6 million on Ballistic Fingerprinting. It's been used to finger and convict ONE murderer. That's all. And he might have been discovered anyway through normal police investigation/witnesses.

Is that program a failure? Should we scrap it or keep it? Since it pretty much just consumes money and doesn't solve crimes.

[Hoyt]

23. When gun fanciers stop whining about it. Fact is, I think you guys are afraid of anything that

might tie you to a gun in the event of a Zimmerman type incident.

If gun fanciers are concerned, it's likely a good technology.

Might not be perfect, the first electric cars certainly weren't. But it will get better. Heck, at some point in the future, we might even be able to determine what one is thinking when they pull that gun and shoot center mass. At that point, all this "stand your ground" and other bull becomes worthless. We'll know whether the gun was fired in fear, self-defense, or just plain callousness, bigotry, as intimidation, as a compensator, etc.. Yeah, I know, kind of out there, but so is your opposition to anything that might bring some sanity to your guys' bad habit.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Until they invent gun barrels that do not wear, it will not get better.

If they come out with gun barrels that do not wear, hell, I'll buy and register one, because fuck yeah.


You didn't really answer the question, you just kind of left it hanging as you accepting something obnoxiously punitive against gun owners, cost-wise.

I repeat the question; at what point does one of these technologies become apparent that it is so worthless it is not worth maintaining.

Keep in mind, Maryland LEO would like the registry gone too, because those dollars represent resources better directed to other law enforcement efforts.

[Hoyt]

26. The quest for preventing gun violence is not worthless. Gun owners won't stop gun use, so

government has to take action -- sometimes experiment -- to stop gun fanciers from killing innocent people, directly (pull the trigger), or indirectly (accumulate gunz, transfer gunz without background checks, indoctrinate kids into gun culture, vote based upon support of gunz, encourage bigoted "stand your ground" laws, support carrying of gunz in public, and more).

How many people need to get killed, wounded, intimidated, etc., before gun lovers say this has gone too far?

[AtheistCrusader]

28. This experiment has failed spectacularly.

And it is consuming resources that might be better spent actually fighting crime.

Again, at what point do we consider this specific effort worthless, and move on. Keep in mind, I am not excluding the possibility of DIFFERENT regulation in substitute for this program.

[Hoyt]

30. Personally, I'm for any hoops that might make you guys stop buying/carrying/promoting gunz.

It's all worthwhile if it makes you stop, or even cut back. Not unlike the effort to reduce smoking, and second hand smoke.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Well, it's nice of you to be honest, but

that's kinda counter-productive when even local law enforcement think it's a bad idea/waste of money that could be better spent.

[Hoyt]

36. Apparently, some local governments think it is a good idea, notwithstanding the whining.

And apparently some companies are putting some significant money into developing the technology. I also like the idea of computer chips in gunz.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. You mean 'notwithstanding the complete ineffectiveness as a law enforcement tool'?

Because it's horribly ineffective.

I imagine, even you, could probably think of things under CURRENT firearm laws that that 2.6 million could have been better spent on. Like BATFE personell to follow up on NICS denials, or even inspection of FFL's paperwork, looking for 'lost guns' and other straw purchase activites?

[Hoyt]

39. That is your opinion. I think it is effective, as do these companies and some states.

Further, registration of ammo would be effective, but I'm sure that makes gun fanciers pucker.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. How is one solved crime, ever, an 'effective' law enforcment tool, at a cost of 2.6mill?

What kind of 'effective' are you thinking here?

[krispos42]

42. Heh, don't feel like going on the record, huh?

That's okay. Just know that when you make fun of somebody for being concerned about gun confiscation, you're part of the reason why it's a concern, however much you won't explicitly state it.

And, of course, "society's best interests" is virtual civilian disarmament, right?

If you want to pass gun laws, why don't you drop the cultural aspect of your fight, the part that wants to take on "gun culture", and instead work on a system of universal background checks that doesn't involve registration?

[Hoyt]

43. Not exactly, but it is not in society's best interests for you and a bunch of gun fanciers to

walk down our streets with gunz in your pants and a locker full at home.

Nor is it in society's interest to buy the myth of the "law-abiding gun owner" when you guys are already sitting around figuring out ways to file off the mechanism, carry shell catchers, and other crud to avoid being caught if you pull a Zimmerman.

The "gun culture" is an aspect of the gun issue. I don't care if you walk around with 5 gunz in your pants out in the middle of nowhere. I do care if some similarly armed yahoo is standing behind me at Chuck E Cheese.

You guys try to act like it's hunky-dory to walk around on city streets with gunz, buy every gun you can, and worse -- promote more gunz, the teaching of little kids that gunz are good, the free-riding of right/white wing organizations like the NRA (that is interested in far more than just gunz), etc.

Why does registration scare you so much? I understand why the militia types and right/white wing is scared of it, but why are you so scared of registration?

Your gunz will never be confiscated unless you prove to be a significant risk to society. Heck, the gungeon is full of tips on how to avoid confiscation. What is it you supposed "law-abiding" guys say you'll tell law enforcement if they try to take your gunz, "Oh, I was out in my boat with all my gunz and it sunk."

[AtheistCrusader]

44. It's usually a tragic canoeing accident.

1. It's ok for me to carry a gun in public, because I have paid my fee for a state license to do so, and passed a FBI background check, including fingerprint check to ensure I am not a criminal, nor are my mitts wanted for any outstanding crimes. I also have to leave my fingerprints on file with the state, so they can find me easier if I DO commit a future crime, as well as flagging in various databases, like drivers license and vehicle licensing, so the police know I am likely to be armed if they ever pull me over.

Does it still bother you if I have it on my person, concealed, per state law and license, if we happen to end up in line somewhere together?

2. I don't know what you mean by 'free riding' the NRA. I source my support/opposition to gun control measures on effectiveness, not what the NRA says. The less people like you push for harassment of gun owners (like spending money on stupid shit like ballistic fingerprinting) the less power the NRA has, because people stop listening to them, or becoming members.

3. Registration doesn't scare me, but I have a hard time getting traction with gun owners on it, because in California, registration was used for ex post facto ban/confiscation. That shit really upsets gun owners. If we could PLEASE NOT FUCK UP registries, or arbitrarily close them, per the 1986 GCA/Hughes Amendment, that would be just fucking peachy, mmkay?

[Hoyt]

45. Difficult to get "traction" from right wing gun owners, and they are the majority.

So, the more liberal gun fanatics are gonna have to convince them of the benefits to society, assuming they are really inclined, which I have my doubts.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. It's actually something that can be shown.

I have a co-worker who was hit by professional thieves. They cut open his safe while he was out of state.

When the police caught up with the thieves, they were able to identify him as the lawful owner, and return them to him.
That's a solid benefit right there.

[riqster]

3. I didn't see squat from gun owners.

I saw a lot of quotes from gun manufacturers and their lobbyists.

[pipoman]

5. It isn't sensible, safe, or smart...

It is silly, and easily negated. I suspect most manufacturers will decline.

[Hoyt]

12. How is it unsafe?

[pipoman]

13. How is it safe?

It isn't safe nor unsafe.

[Duckhunter935]

7. a waste

not safe or smart. parts wear so the printing goes away after use, Why exempt police and revolvers? Is this smart?

[Demo_Chris]

8. Statement from Smith and Wesson...

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/other/MSMicroSFinal.pdf

[A Simple Game]

14. I wonder how many dollars Smith & Wesson will lose in sales?

It seems from their statement that they rushed two models into the market to help keep sales up for awhile. They say the technology is proven not to work, but where is the proof? Has it been used anywhere else? My prediction is that Smith & Wesson quietly reenter the market within a year.

I say make them do all handguns, including revolvers, all rifles too, and especially anything used by a cop.

[Eljo_Don]

15. A message to Smith & Wesson.

S&W, propose an alternative and simpler way of identifying the bullet, not the shell casing: Supply the barrel pattern of each gun manufactured. This does not require changes to the gun.

Is is very easy to collect shell casing at a shooting club (with different microstampings). You use the gun and spread 15 or 20 shell casings all around. Get a good lawyer that requires the matching of each case with the bullets fired ( this is all most impossible to do ) and you are free to go.

CIS persons get smart. This can take your job away. No need for your lab processing .

[Hoyt]

16. I really can't see someone going to a shooting range to collect shell casings.

Maybe if someone wants to frame someone, but few people would be convicted based upon microstamping as the only evidence against them.

I know that is an argument that gunners advance, but how likely is a Zimmerman to walk around for years with a pocket full of shell casings to sprinkle around if he shoots another unarmed kid and thinks he can run away.

I do agree that rifling patterns should be available, but microstamping is also a good idea. If the gun fanciers don't like it, they can stop arming up and promoting gunz. Problem solved.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. It does seem unlikely.

More likely would be a miscreant filing off the surface of the firing pin.

[Hoyt]

27. And, if they get caught with altered gun, they can't have anymore. Problem solved for that miscreant

[AtheistCrusader]

29. How in the world would you check that?

Issue microscopes to LEO? Random checkpoints?

Then you'd have to prove the firearm was manufactured AFTER the law was enacted, etc.

What a regulatory mess.

[Hoyt]

31. Yeah, I'm really concerned about any hassles the poor, pitiful gun fancier is put through.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Well, depends on your goal.

If you want to enlist the AID of gun owners in solving these problems, that's a horribly counter-productive stance.

If your goal is to eliminate gun owners as a class entirely, then well... I guess it makes sense.

[Hoyt]

35. Like gunners stance on microstamping, you are not likely to get any meaningful "AID" from them.

Not trying to eliminate you. Sans gunz, I love you guys.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Not true.

There are certainly gun owners that can be motivated or incentivized into things like safe storage, or even microstamping.

But not with that attitude.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Ballistic fingerprinting doesn't work.

It's been the law in Maryland for like 6 years now, at a cost of 2.6 million dollars. It's solved a single crime that may well have been solved through normal police work anyway.

2.6 million to solve one crime. Not a good return on investment.

Clean the gun a couple times and the fingerprint changes. That's what happened in the one case where it worked: the purchaser immediately used it in the crime, without cleaning or firing it anywhere else. So the fingerprint had not eroded.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. If you want to know why it's opposed, ask the Police in CA why they are exempt.

There is a specific exemption in the law for LEO. Why? Not beneficial to know which casings came from which officer when weapons are discharged in a law enforcement capacity?

Gee, I wonder why.

[Taitertots]

34. Because files don't exist

Revolvers don't exist
Shell catchers don't exist
Cartridges can't be picked up.....

[Hoyt]

41. If someone is walking down the street with shell catchers, they are a Zimmerman waiting to happen.

Actually, we'd be much better off if gunners stuck to revolvers. Revolvers are sexy enough to cause gun fanciers to buy up as many as they can afford and trick them out like a SWAT team.