The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Are there any sources for the controversy section? For all those opponents and proponents sections? I am just wondering. Many of them sound logical but I would like to see if someone reputable has published their concerns like those or if it is just someone who cooked those up in their own heads. I am just concerned that there is a pocket of OR there that needs to be addressed. --Alandholder (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Salting the crime scene, wear, sole-source technology, swapping parts, impossibility of tracking a given gun to a criminal, and inadequate testing are all covered by this SAAMI bulletin: http://saami.org/LL/CA-AB352.cfm I'll start adding cites. scot (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There would seem to be some original research (or information from fairly poor sources) in the criticisms section, such as saying that cases reloaded from a firing range would carry confusing marks (assuming that centrefire cartridges are used, the percussion cap - the part that will be 'stamped' - will require replacement, hence the original marks will be lost) and the part suggesting that criminals will 'frame' innocent shooters by collecting brass from the range (they can aready do this, as fired cases marked or not will likely carry the fingerprints of the person who loaded the mag/clip). Can someone check whether these arguments exist in verifiable sources, or whether they're just being made up by editors? Jellyfish dave (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop removing cited material I add to the article. Also, the fact that there is no evidence of something should be a viable means of argument. A lack of verifiable sources should be able to be mentioned in arguments. --Alandholder 20:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Cited" material should be marked. Have identified Original Research with need for cite; if there is no cite, then OR must be removed by WP policy. A lack of verifiable sources is not a license to add one's POV instead. Lets keep to the cited facts here. Thank you. Yaf 21:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was/is marked. Also, my point is that a scientific experiment begins with a thesis hypothesis, a question that needs to be answered. Krivosta's question was unreasonable and was based on an unsubstantiated claim. Which goes to the heart of the credibility of the results. If i set parameters that create unreasonable restrictions for the test, then I am essentially setting up the test for failure; nullifying any results forthwith.
--Alandholder 21:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was not marked, regarding who is making the interpretation regarding Krivosta's "assumption". and the interpretation of the outcome results is also not cited. Also, it is not clear who the "emphasis mine" part refers to. Have removed OR. Please do not reinsert your "facts" unless they are properly cited. Have removed the original research. (And, I do understand the scientific method, having an earned PhD in engineering. Avoiding a condescending attitude would be a better approach in the future.) Thank you. Yaf 22:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, you removed cited materials from the site. The two quotations come directly from Krivost'a abstract and report. SO I would appreciate it if you would leave those alone. Second, I do apologize for coming off as condescending, I did not intend to sound condescending, although after re-reading my comments I do understand that they sound that way; I will reword them. Lastly, the 'emphasis mine' tag, is simply to differentiate between the original quotation and emphasis added by the quoting party. There is no need to delete because of such an insert. Simply rewording to emphasis added would suffice and if you would write a little more clearly (your initial response was both unclear and confusing) we may be able to avoid these kinds of confrontations.
--Alandholder 01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question is "who says Krivosta's question was unreasonable", because to put that kind of info in the article it needs to be sourced. If one of us looks at it and says it's unreasonable, that's called original research. And the same goes for "who says his question was based on an unsubstantiated claim". If you want to put this in the article, you'll need to provide a reliable source. Arthur 01:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to put a cited source in there, but the only person who has taken the time to publish about this is Todd Lizotte, the creator of the technology, in a press release by NanoMark. However, every time I post material by Mr. Lizotte, it is removed by claims that Mr. Lizotte has a bias. However, I wonder if, based on the arguments presented by Mr. Lizotte to me, if Krivosta did not have a bias when conducting his experiment. I do understand your point, but I have heard the arguments against Krivosta's study and looked over the study myself, and to me and to Mr. Lizotte the study is based on false pretenses. Mr. Lizotte even spoke to Mr. Krivosta for over two hours about this and Mr. Krivosta that is when Mr. Lizotte came to his conclusions. Again, I cannot cite any of this, I can only talk about it here. --Alandholder 01:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a cited source does not exist, then it is Original Research (OR) and must be removed, as it draws original conclusions from primary sources. This is not permitted by Wikipedia policy. You need to find a source for these research results to remain. So, I will remove this original research for now, until you are able to find a reliable source in accordance with WP:RS. Thank you. Yaf 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am citing Krivosta's original study and quoting him directly. I will continue to undo your edit if you persist to eliminate my cited statement of fact. Krivosta does presume that the technology is meant to replace forensic examiners. It is right there in black and white. No analysis, it is his own words. His Own Words. --Alandholder 04:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, CSGV did not ask for or endorse those tests. They were done solely by NanoMark, they are simply on the CSGV server for access by interested parties. Second, there is no passive voice weasel language in my quotations about Krivosta, they are pure quotations with a paraphrasing and a preface so the reader can easily understand the point being made. Such a point should be made since the study has many flaws in its execution that have not been published.
the source used to claim that the service life of any handgun is 30,000 rounds does not say anything like that. It is referring to the standards set for an individual model of handgun meant for use by Czech police. This is not an authoritative study on the average number of rounds a handgun will fire in it's life time.
In regards to the recent edits, the edits made on the Krivosta study are not clarifying it or making it more encyclopedic. They are clouding the fact that it is the thesis of the study. It needs to be prefaced to establish that this is the thesis, the question being tested, in this study. If one leaves those quotes standing alone then no one will understand what the ymean or why they are there. Second, if one wished to be very technical, when a bullet leaves the gun and the tool marks are made on the exterior of the bullet, this is a form of microstamping. It is unintentional microstamping, so yes it does have something to do with firearm microstamping because it also is firearm microstamping. Also, the pop-culture references are harmless, there is no reason to delete them, they just help people without deep knowledge of the subject to connect it to something they do know. The language used in the creation of the technology is not 'selling' a product, it is narrating the timeline of the evolution of the technology. Which is published in the study by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. There was no inflammatory language that was making the microstamping technology more attractive. I hope I may have clarified these points for you, I will re-instate my previous additions when the protection is lifted unless one can reply with an appropriate response. --Alandholder (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously others here disagree with the edits you've been making, so it would be inappropriate to restore them yet again without first discussing here and getting some kind of consensus. Otherwise you'll just continue the edit war after a brief delay, probably leading to yet another protection. Why not try to work out the issues here first rather than in the article itself? Arthur (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying but no one wants to let me put one thing in there: The information about Krivosta's thesis. That seems to have been a big sticking point. But I will not concede this point because it is not original research and since it points out a flaw in the study I feel it should be included. Why should people believe a study that was set up to fail? So that is the one thing, at this juncture, that I want in this article. So if we can agree on putting that in there then great, other wise, I will just continue to undo that one edit. --Alandholder (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Putting in your original research on this is not permitted by WP rules. If you can find a reliable source that makes the claims you wish to make, then it is not original research. As editors, we are not allowed to do original research but instead must find secondary sources. Yaf (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't original research, I am highlighting the thesis of the study so those reading about it can know what it is he is actually researching. Simply putting in quotes what he says puts it completely out of context; without which, people might not understand what the quote is for or what it means. Also re-ordering the section putting the thesis first is more logical. It doesn't make sense to put the question you are trying to answer after the answer itself. --Alandholder (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need specifics about "Claims made by the opponents of the technology", which opponents, who specifically, where and what is their reputation. Litch 04:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then it seems fair the the same should apply to claims by the proponents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.19.82 (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To any of the moderators and others who keep removing affirmative material from this page:
I have been posting material on the affirmative for this topic. This page is obviously biased toward the negative, including only the negative studies, which were done haphazardly or by non-professionals (The UC Davis study was done by a graduate student with no background in ballistics identification, yet the study is on the page. When I try and post the facts relayed to me by Todd Lizotte, who I spoke to over the phone, I am refused. Even though he is the one who developed this highly precise technology); and refuses to allow me to criticize these studies for their obvious flaws and intellectual laziness. Additionally, I am not allowed to post recent research done by the developers of the technology because it is going to be considered original research since it isn't "published" in any public sources.
So I am in whatever way formally complaining about the bias in this wiki page and the impeding of my efforts to insert arguments in the affirmative to this NOPV policy that wikipedia is so adamant about upholding is maintained.
--Alandholder 16:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your talk with Todd Lizotte is unverifiable original research, which is not allowed (WP:OR). Lizotte's studies are biased because he has a profit motive for seeing this technology succeed. If you can provide a verifiable source for the claims you are making, then by all means include them, but "I talked to him on the phone" doesn't leave me any way to verify that what you say is correct. I also removed most of the content Lizotte added when he dumped a press release on the page, because he's a biased source, and that's against policy as well. Any bias against the technology you see in the page is purely a reflection of the results of independent testing. scot 16:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are telling me that since these studies are rife with errors in the scientific method, based on unrealistic circumstances, and, in the case of the UC Davis study, done by non-experts with limited budgets, that there is no way to refute them because I am using logic and reasoning that can't be verified but only understood? That I have no recourse other than to pay someone else to do a study, publish it then cite it on here? If that is the case do you know of any foundations I can write my grant proposals to, because I have to get started now because it will be at least two years before anyone gets the other side of this argument. What about the fact that the main opposition to this technology is the NRA, and that Todd Lizotte, is a member of the NRA. Do you think that that bears at all on this argument? --Alandholder 16:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, until someone publishes another study about the technology, all that can be used are the published statements from NanoTag, and the two studies that have been published, and any published refutations thereof. And your arguments are not ironclad either:
Old guns: The 1911 design is pushing 100 years old, and it's still in use by SWAT teams and competitive shooters the world over; if you can't apply the NanoTag technology to the 1911, then you've effectively banned civilian ownership of the 1911 in California. Ditto for any other existing firearms models, if they are "not suited" for the technology, or guns by small manufacturers, who cannot afford to "optimize the process" for their guns. If previously used guns are not suitable for the technology, then the bill also bans import of any used handguns into the state, or civilian sale of handguns surplussed by the police (who are, of course, exempt from the "safe handgun" requirements, like magazine disconnects, loaded chamber indicators, and built-in locks).
Non-optimized markings: If the markings require special deburring to ensure a good transfer, that just indicates that they are highly prone to wear. 2,500 rounds is nowhere near a valid test; I can shoot 500 rounds myself in a single shooting session. What about applying a bit of tape over the markings to clog them with adhesive? How about solder? What about dry-firing the gun into a hardened steel rod to shatter the "hard as diamond" surface of the firing pin? To say nothing of the readily obtainable diamond sharpeners--I have one sitting on my desk right now, that I use to touch up the edge on my pocketknife.
NRA member: The NRA rightly opposes the California bill because it's a backdoor attempt to ban handguns as "unsafe" unless they use an unproven, proprietary, single source technology (just because Lizotte doens't want to charge royalties now doesn't mean he can't later--look at Unisys and the LZW patents). Anyone can be an NRA member, that Lizotte just happens to be one is entirely irrelevant, as a single member does not dictate policy.
Logic is not relevant here though, because the real question is "What will happen in practice?", and no study has been nearly exhaustive enough to consider that. If the technology has been around for 8 years, why haven't we seen the results of some serious tests? With real guns, used by competition shooters, who fire thousands of rounds a week? Why not use issue guns, like UC Davis did, from the academy, only do so for a few years and see what happens over the service life of the gun? The service life of a typical service pistol these days is on the order of thirty thousand rounds or more, and even expendable parts like recoil springs last longer than 2,500 rounds. scot 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few things that you are missing:
The reason why we haven't seen tests by competitive shooters firing thousands of rounds is because the bill and the technology is aimed at criminals and crime guns. The FBI has shown that crime guns shoot about 500 rounds before they end up in the hands of police and that the average crime sees the discharge of on average 5 rounds. So unless you are willing to concede that competition shooters are prone to commit crimes than your rebuttal is bunk.
De-burring is a standard step whenever one works with precise engraving and cutting of metals, the de-burring ensures a clean edge on the microstamp and a clean transfer. The metal just doesn't disappear when the engraving is made, tiny microscopic burrs remain and need to be cleaned.
There have been tests done by Lucien Haag, of which I have yet to find the published version, where rounds whose primer was covered in lacquer, so that tape theory you mentioned has already been tested and passed. Unfortunately all that i can find for Mr. Haag's study is an abstract from his presentation at an ATME meeting. About the other methods you mentioned, how many criminals would you suppose would have the knowledge of firearms or the tools necessary to deface the firearm in ways you just stated. This would indicate a premeditation for crime, so the gun was bought for the purpose of committing a crime and trying to get away with it. Unless you have something you want to get away with there is no reason to deface a gun equipped with this.
If all you can think about this technology is trying to ban guns then you have missed the whole point. People who are constantly subjecting individuals with righteous intentions to the gun grabber category, that everyone wants to steal all the guns then set up concentration camps as the next logical step, are poisoning the debate with rubbish. The debate here is not about the secret conspiracy of out government to rule us with an iron hand, but whether or not this technology could help to solve crimes in California and in the rest of the United States and maybe the world. --Alandholder 18:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of where the bill is aimed it has many negative effects on legitimate owners of firearms. These concerns don't just disappear because the bill's intentions are good and the advantages gained by the bill do not necessarily outweigh the costs. That's why there is a debate. Just because someone is a criminal that doesn't make them stupid. Also, only one person (the supplier) needs to know how to deface the markings, not anyone who uses it after that. Anyone with internet access can find out how to deface these markings. And I don't think I need to even start on the "you don't need to deface these markings if you don't have anything to hide" argument. Nailedtooth 00:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you want to discredit studies, let me help you. Beddow's study was criticized because he used old models of firearms; the firearms used in Haag's study were a Browning 1917A1 belt fed, water cooled, recoil operated heavy machine gun, 2500 rounds, an open bolt Thompson submachine gun (not sure if it was blowback or Blish lock, though there would be little difference), 2500 rounds, and a 9mm Glock, 1400 rounds. Haag stated in 2004 that " “the various characters on all of [the] firing pins were easily readable in all types of primers tested and after hundreds of shots.” Hundreds, not thousands. Given that experts recommend firing at least 200 rounds of the intended ammunition in a firearm to test reliability--a mathematical requirement if you want to ensure a 99% or higher reliability, that means that just testing your new gun could wear off the markings, which places you in violation of federal law, which prohibits removal of manufacturer's identifying markings (you know, those serial numbers that criminals are quite fond of filing off). Will microstamping catch more criminals? Almost certainly. But how many more criminals is the law going to make out of gun owners who don't even have the ability to see the marks that they are removing? I also note that no one has done a single test on what is likely the simplest and fastest way of obscuring the markings--rub the base of the cartridge over some medium sandpaper, so that there is not a clean surface onto which the mark can transfer. And that's not even illegal, since you're not removing markings... scot 15:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beddow's study was criticized for a heck of a lot more than just old firearms. The fact that he operated with a budget of 3,500 dollars, could not afford to have the firing pins optimized or to properly view them with the correct methods of magnification. After taking one of the rounds that he test fired and deemed illegible, Todd Lizotte looked at the round with SEM microscopy, and found that the mark was very legible. I have pictures if you don't believe me. Or do you think Lizotte's camera has a bias as well? If you consider the fact that criminals only fire hundreds of rounds before their gun ends up in the hands of police then your complaint is groundless. As to the claim that gun owners will be tried and convicted of defacing their firearms through regular use, hypothetically assuming that the stamp will wear, of which you have no substantial proof, there is no jurisprudence that would set such a precedent. In addition, I am not convinced that a judge would convict someone for wear and tear or that a prosecutor would even press charges for that.--Alandholder 16:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And let me help you to discredit Krivosta's study. Krivosta assumed that the technology was meant to replace forensic examiners with the average investigator and a common microscope. Which it is not. So he simulated these conditions and required a rate of transfer of at least 7 of 8 characters to be satisfactory. So with insufficient lighting, insufficient microscopy, and self-imposed restrictions he still found a 57% transfer rate. To add to that, if one were to recover only 6 of the 8 characters, this would narrow the field down to 1 of 5 different guns. So to say that Krivosta's study realistically said anything about the technology is ridiculous because he used ridiculous circumstances to conduct his study.--Alandholder 16:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is a provision in CA penal code that exempts gun owners who replace their firing pins, I am still trying to find it because th CA penal code is dense and complicated. As soon as I do I will throw it right up here so everyone can see it.--Alandholder 16:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's impossible, because CA law cannot repeal federal law. From US Code, section 922:
(k) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to transport, ship, or receive, in interstate or foreign commerce, any firearm which has had the importer’s or manufacturer’s serial number removed, obliterated, or altered or to possess or receive any firearm which has had the importer’s or manufacturer’s serial number removed, obliterated, or altered and has, at any time, been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
So that would apply only to guns made in California, and never taken out of California. scot 17:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The federal government cannot legislate for intrastate commerce. Penalties associated with violating state laws pertaining to intrastate commerce do not repeal federal law. Also, I cannot comment on the fact of partial defacement. For example, if only part of the serial number supposedly wears off. Also, if the microstamp is defaced, and the exterior serial numbers remain the in tact, then I don't think that the law would apply in that situation since a serial number still exists on the firearm. I am not a lawyer however, so I can't say with assurance that this is the case.--Alandholder 19:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I Didn't say all criminals are stupid, I said all criminals are not gunsmiths, which also includes those who deal in firearms. Also, there is still no reason to deface a serial number unless you want to conceal the identity and any records tied to a gun. It isn't a "why are you running if you have nothing to hide" argument. It's a don't worry about it unless you plan to commit crimes with that gun. The microstamp is not going to harm someone who fired on someone in clear self-defense or someone who is shooting at a firing range. It will only really affect those who fire the gun during the act of a violent crime. So there is no reason to deface such things if that is not your intention.
Also, I don't see the difference here between etching a serial number on the outside of a gun to the inside. I wasn't around when they first started putting serial numbers on firearms but I'm sure the same arguments were used. Yet here we are and all guns have exterior serial numbers on them. This is simply the next step in the technology. And at the most, as claimed by UC Davis this is going to add $8 or the least $.50 as claimed by the creators of the technology, the financial costs are negligible.
Nearly all makers put serial numbers on guns far, far before they were required to by the GCA of 1968. scot 17:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the financial costs associated, possibly the costs of hiring more ballistics examiners, I don't see a whole plethora of challenges that stand in the way of this technology. It only applies to handguns, so all those people who want to target shoot with rifles aren't affected. It is only on new models of firearms and is not retroactive. And the costs both to the consumer and the manufacturer are negligible. What other costs are there? Enlighten me... --Alandholder 14:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
$200,000 to $300,000 per unit for the cost of the equipment.
Distributed over how many thousands of units? If the manufacturer of medium capacity installs this equipment you are looking at a cost of 1.50 to 4.00 dollars per unit. Not a astronomical amount of money.--Alandholder 19:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lizotte issued a statement noting, “If Michael Beddow would have allowed us access to the firearms used in his test as we requested, we could have optimized the firing pins.”. So just having any old laser engraving company do the work is not sufficient; it must be "optimized" by a specialist. -- scot (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good 1911 Bullseye gunsmith will to .05 to .1 thousand units a year, starting with discrete frames and slides that are hand fitted together, so you don't know until you're done which slide goes on which frame. Not to mention that he'd have to be trained on the equipment, plus have the right type of rather expensive microscope and training in reading the marks for doing quality checks on the results. scot 20:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can produce a letter from a laser engraving corporation that is willing to sub contract for this process at a cost of $.50 to $3.00. --Alandholder 15:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lizotte issued a statement noting, “If Michael Beddow would have allowed us access to the firearms used in his test as we requested, we could have optimized the firing pins.”. So just having any old laser engraving company do the work is not sufficient; it must be "optimized" by a specialist. -- scot (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, if I go to a range to practice, I will now absolutely have to pick up all brass, as otherwise, it would be setting me up similar to a case of identity theft. Anyone planning on committing a crime, that picks up brass at the range beforehand, could "salt" a crime scene with my used brass. As a legitimate target shooter, I would then have to pay, out of my own pocket, for any legal defense required, which according to my attorney would likely run into the medium 5 figures, or more, depending on the notoriety of the crime committed. This means that gunowners would have to practice a different form of safe shooting, similar to buying a shredder for home documents rather than discarding them in the trash as was once the practice, but instead for all used brass. This is a royal pain, and is clearly different than putting serial numbers on firearms, as I don't ever leave my firarm(s) at the range :-) Why should legitimate gunowners have to be hassled this way? Yaf 15:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me respond to your question with a question of my own. What is stopping them from doing that now?
--Alandholder 15:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. But, under the status quo, there is nothing to tie the picked up brass back to innocent firearm owners. With over 200 million firearms in the US, there is nothing to point to a single legitimate firearm or user from the picked up brass. With your proposed "hassle the legal firearm owner" method, this all changes. Yaf 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are making a key assumption about our justice system; that the presumption of innocence does not exist. In so far as there are certain cases where someone is presumed guilty for one reason or another (i.e. race, socioeconomic status), the presumption of innocence does exist. So presumably after establishing that one was not at the crime scene, that one has an alibi, then the responsible gun owner is only hassled by some phone calls and a visit by the police or to a police station. Essentially they are fulfilling a civic duty by cooperating with the police in solving a crime.
--Alandholder 15:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do make some assumptions about our legal system, specifically about gun control laws--and that is that they are for show. Take the Brady Bill, another of those "Oh, it won't be a hassle, and look at how much good it will do!". Let's see:
The false positive rate is very high; 14% of rejections are challenged, and 30% of those challenges succeed, so a MINIMUM of 5% of rejections are false. The GAO puts the false positive rate at up to 50%.
There have been no more than a handful of convictions on the correct rejections; and keep in mind that attempting to purchase a firearm illegally is a felony, and how many of those buyers then go to the private market and purchase a gun? If you want to get guns out of the hands of criminals, you've got a signed and witnessed felonious false statement right there. For example, there were 69,000 rejections in 1997, and only 36 convictions. The arrest rate is around 200 a year.
The bill has had zero effect on violent crime. Both sides have claimed it has reduced or increased crime, but in truth, there is no statistically significant change either way that can be tied to the bill.
The vast majority of the false positives are cases of mistaken identity or cases where the felony charges, the reason behind the denial, were dismissed. That is according to the DOJ statistics. So what that means is that 991,000 disqualified individuals were prevented from purchasing guns. I'd say that we got some guns out of a few people's hands. Also, maybe the violent crime rate hasn't gone down because all those criminals drive to Virginia and buy their guns from gun shows without a background check. --Alandholder 20:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
US Code section 922(t)(2)(C) says that in the case of a successful transfer the agency performing the NICS check must destroy all records of the system with respect to the call (other than the identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records of the system relating to the person or the transfer. Yet there have been accusations that the FBI has been keeping records of the transfers, in violation of this law.
So it has not been proven to prevent felons from getting guns (since there is no followup to see if firearms are purchased from private buyers); it has not had any discernable impact on violent crime; it has been proven to keep legitimate purchasers from legally obtaining firearms; it has been subject to abuse by the FBI. Sounds like sufficient justification for paranoia about a law that makes a poorly studied, controversial technique law. scot 17:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The science of Forensic Firearm and Toolmark Examination relies on the use of highly trained and skilled individuals to identify & compare accidental markings left on expended ammunition components. To circumvent the need for these individuals, it has long been suggested to rely on manufacturer-generated unique characteristics that would be transferred onto the expended components. By doing this, the examination of an expended ammunition comonent could lead one back to the original purchaser of the firearm, without the need to recover the actual firearm. This would offer law enforcement a tool that current instrumental tools, designed to examine accidental markings, seem unable to deliver.
What I see here is the issue of accidental markings vs. deliberate markings, allowing a positive ID of the firearm without having the firearm in possession. Nothing says that a layman would be able to read the codes, or that a SEM would not need to be used, just that the markings claim to be unambiguous and would allow a certain ID of the firearm from just an ammunition component. Saying more than that is putting words into Kristova's mouth. scot 15:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you read into the first few paragraphs of his study, you will see he says that the technology is meant to be used at the crime scene by someone with little or no training. I am not positive about this, but i dont think you can tote electron microscopes around outside or even in trucks. If you look at that i have put no words in his mouth. They are all his words. Also, his statement that ID Dynamics suggested the technology could do htis is totally wrong. Since I can't cite anything saying that i cant put it in the article, but it is dead wrong. just look at the study you will see it it is in the secong paragraph, begins with "this vendor suggests..."
"Provides Make, Model, and Tracking Number At The Crime Scene", ID Dynamics. scot 16:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that would contradict anything that Krivosta said, if anything it would confirm his assumption was correct. I know that is isn't because I have spoken with Todd Lizotte, but the chart doesn't do anything to make my point about krivosta nullfied. Also, it doesn't mean that now forensic examiners wont be brought into the field to examine rounds at the scene of the crime. ---- Alandholder (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another source has been given showing that handgun life is MUCH larger than the number of rounds used in the studies in this article. Anyone who thinks that 2,500 rounds is the average life of a pistol simply needs to do a little research. That's an extremely low number for a pistol. Imagine a casual shooter who goes to the range 5-6 times a year and each time shoots 2 boxes of ammo, 100 rounds. This would give him less than a 5 year life-span for a pistol. I'm not aware of any pistol with such a short lifespan. -- Arthur (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I can't find a single source that gives an "average service life" (admittedly a damned hard thing to do) I've provided additional sources from Beretta for the XM-9 tests (168k rounds), a magazine article by Massad Ayoob about a Glock that's had 80k rounds through it, and a book that covers the H&K SOCOM gun, and the the JSOC offensive handgun requirements it had to meet (30k before any service (i.e. recoil spring replacement), then 30k more). 100,000 rounds isn't at all unusual. -- scot (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I still don't see the relevance as the technology and the legislation are both aimed at criminals who are not casual shooters who go to firing ranges. They are people who obtained their guns illegally and/or legally for a specific purpose. So the fact the the police and military, whose lives depend on functioning firearms, in my opinion, has no bearing on this argument. Since there is a source however, I wont dispute it any further than this. I don't remove properly sourced material. ---- Alandholder (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relevance is that guns used in crimes are frequently borrowed or stolen. The original owners may well have fired the gun in question thousands of times. -- Arthur (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are just pulling this stuff out of your rear ends. Most folks aren't gun nuts who spend their weekends shooting bullets for fun. If something wears out then replace it. Might as well get rid of seat belts because they're such a fucking inconvenience. Felsic (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of the edit war going on on the article at the moment, I've protected the page for 1 day after being asked to look at the situation as an uninvolved admin. All of you involved should take the issue here and stop reverting each other. Thanks for your consideration. Regards, Neranei(talk) 22:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article deals almost exclusively with the legal and social issues associated with the technology of Firearms microstamping. Yet other than a few sentences there is almost nothing about the technology. What are the differences in firing pins? How long does the stamping last? What scale is the data encoded? What type of technology is necessary to view the microstamp? Does using different types of shell primers negates the stamp? imho this topic is missing the basis for the entire article. It explains what it is, and then has a huge volume on why or why not, but has next to nothing on HOW.
Because they cannot speak to the technology. This is typical dirty socialist gun grabbing legislation aimed at nothing more than keeping firearms out of the hands of honest citizens. Why else would there be a law enforcement exemption?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, tell us how you really feel. Felsic (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The technology is, aside from the very small scale, not very interesting. As many have observed, the microstamping can be defaced in a few seconds. The whole thing smacks of a kickback deal for some politician. Nobody seems to have mentioned that revolvers will still be readily available, and that they don't throw brass all over the crime scene, so they defeat this "technology" without any effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.207.4 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone in agreement with me that this article needs to be overhauled? I'm left with more questions than answers when I read it. First off, the most significant portion of it is the Controversy section which per WP guidelines should not be a section at all. Negative and/or controversial content should be woven throughout an article so as to avoid WP:COATRACKING and WP:UNDUE material. This is almost a direct quote from Jimbo himself.
One problem that I see is how to organize it so that its anything but a stub article. Since the technology is supplied by a single source, it would make sense for a separate article about that company to be written, otherwise this article will come across as promotional material for a for-profit firm.
I have found content regarding "microstamping" in general and unrelated to firearms plus there seems to be a fair amount of material missing about proposed legislation and the current status of bills that were passed.
If there's only one company that currently supplies microstamping technology, I don't think that's a problem with the article, and I don't think it necessarily means that the company should have a separate article. There's a lot to say about microstamping, so I don't see why the article would need to be particularly short. As far as the Controversy section, I do see that they're discouraged by WP:CSECTION. On the other hand, microstamping is a very controversial topic. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clear, I don't want the article to be a stub, but if its cleaned up and organized better (including the Controversy section) it may be reduced significantly in size. Do you have any suggestions for a similar article to use as a template for the outline or sections? I've been trying to think of a comparable technology, but none come to mind. I'll see if I can get Mike Searson from the Firearm Project to chime in. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a casual reader, I would like to echo that the "Objections" section appears biased. The uncritical presentation of SAAMI's arguments against the technology reads as if Wikipedia is endorsing them as fact. If anything, SAAMI's criticism would be more appropriate in a discussion of the California bill, as that bill appears to be what the source page was written in response to.
If the section is going to be kept in, I'd suggest giving a more specific description of what SAAMI is (a gun manufacturers' association) at the beginning of the paragraph, as the original mention of the group is slightly buried earlier in the article and "trade group" is vague. 140.160.182.176 (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article shouldn't bias the reader with "controversial" adjective in lede.[1] Or maybe it should, depending on your POV. The California stuff was strewn all over the article. I put it under one heading. The lead was stupid - "Blah blah is a term". I fixed it. My guess is someone will revert without any good reason. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I bet they'll do it again too. Felsic (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And of course it was reverted yet again - still no discussion here. This is slow motion edit warring. Felsic (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Why doncha call it "Microstamping"? There ain't any other kind. Felsic (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Microstamping. There is no need to disambiguate this. If there were, however, then following the pattern of the similar articles would be wise. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Microstamping as above. "Microstamping" in its own primarily refers to the firearms technology. In any case, moving from a natural title to one with parenthetical disambiguation is not an improvement, so I do not support such a move. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: @Felsic:, @SMcCandlish:, @209.211.131.181:, there is also microstamping for jewelry, but that seems much less notable. There could be other uses for micro stamps in the future, but I suppose the page could always be moved once the other technology became notable. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Post-RM note: I'm happy to see it moved, but two comments in favor and one neutral doesn't constitute a "broad consensus". Closes (non-admin or otherwise) need to accurately reflect the debate. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of things have goals. The 2nd Amendment "has the goal" of protecting gun rights. The US Army "has the goal" of defending the country. A car "has the goal" of providing transportation. How many other articles use that same form in the intro? None, I bet. This is just there to cast doubts on the technology. Felsic (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I edited it out again. The "goal" crap serves no purpose other than to cast doubt on the technology using Wikipedia's voice. It ain't neutral. Felsic (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of liability for the gun owner if the firing pin is replaced or experiences normal wear with use, or if the chamber marking is removed, may constitute violating federal and/or state statutes that impose strict penalties for defacing the serial numbers of firearms. However, in an amendment proposed to the bill passed in California AB 1471, this issue is addressed, at least at the state level:
"The microscopic array of characters required by this section shall not be considered the name of the maker, model, manufacturer's number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice[of California], within the meaning of Sections 12090 and 12094."[1][2]
The microstamping is therefore not considered the serial number under California law, for the intents and purposes of the California penal code. It is still unclear if such penalties may be prosecuted at the federal level, as there is no firm definition of a "manufacturer's serial number."[3]
I don't see a single secondary source for this crap. Find someone who says this is an issue before shoving it back into the article. Felsic (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who makes the point that microstamping is useless because most guns used in crime are stolen? The link above doesn't mention microstamping, so it's just being used to support someone's original research. Prove me wrong. Felsic (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "pro and con" stuff has gotta have sources.Felsic (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the unsourced material. Naturally, Miguel reverted me without any discussion. I deleted it again, after splitting out the one fact with a source. The material I took out shouldn't be put back without sources. Felsic (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The original inventor of micro-stamping of bullets is Mr. Gaston Glock the founder and inventor of Glock Firearms. During the late 1990's, Miami Dade county was having problem with crime and a number of incidents involving police involved shootings[1]. The problem that was identified was that because Miami Dade county used Glocks, it was near impossible to match the bullet fired to a specific officers firearm [1]. This led to the potential issue, that police agencies might turn away from Glock products to firearms which produced better "unintentional microstamps - e.g. tool marks". Mr. Glock solved the problem. Mr. Glock invented the ability to use a mechanical tool to create what was termed EBIS, "Enhanced Barrel Identification System" or simply known as the "Miami Barrel" or "intentional Microstamping - e.g. specific tool marks". Mr. Glock Patented the invention; US Patent 6796073 "Method for producing a barrel marking"[2] and European Patent EP1327849A1 [3].
What he designed was a microstamping barrel marking method that could identify the firearm, based solely on the bullet itself. Mr. Gabriel Hernandez presented a paper and research of the success of this EBIS product. Also a Dr. Fadul researched the accuracy and reliability of he technology for his PhD dissertation [5]. Both the Hernandez and Fadul papers show >99% reliability [1][4]. The fact is the firearm industry; specifically the European firearm industry; is capable of developing microstamping technologies with high degrees of repeatability and accuracy when the need arises, such as when sales are in jeopardy. I think this is a perfect example.
When you look at firing pins or breach faces the fact remains; Gaston Glock successfully placed microstamping into the barrel the most difficult part of the firearm and successfully created a means of identification to match a specific barrel to a specific bullet. The research shows that the features he produced where on the scale of 25 microns or .001". And it still worked.
Change of company name in manufacturing section[edit]
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
What I think should be changed (include citations):
Original:
The proprietary technology was invented and patented by Todd Lizotte and is presently owned by a company he founded called NanoMark, a division of ID Dynamics of Seattle, Washington.[19] They are the only company from which this technology can be purchased.
New:
" The proprietary technology was invented and patented by Todd Lizotte and is presently owned by a company he founded called TACLABS, Inc.[19] They are the only company from which this technology can be purchased."
Already done Looking at the backlog this change appears to have been already made. I Am Chaos (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References
Updates to the status/real use of microstamping?[edit]
The article seems to imply that as of 2013, California's AB 1471 went into effect and all new handgun sales were required to be microstamped. However, throughout the article multiple references are made to the technology still being proprietary, costly, no mainstream compliant guns existing ("no production firearm has been able to meet this requirement"), etc. Which is it? Are guns simply not being sold in California anymore?
It is additionally not clear if TACLABS' technology is being sold to gun manufacturers, or if they have contracted with any manufacturer to produce microstamped guns. 140.160.182.176 (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Already done Looking at the backlog this change appears to have been already made. I Am Chaos (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
