SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A group in Washington is promoting an initiative to reduce gun crime by using laser-etched bullets to track shooters. According to their website, the data will only be used for legitimate investigations (no datamining) and secured with "recursive verification" features (sounds like a blockchain). Washington state already requires ammunition purchasers to produce valid ID when making purchases. Googling reveals that previous efforts by state legislatures to enact similar legislation have been torpedoed by the gun lobby. Initiatives are not subject to lobbying, so it should be interesting to see how the opposition tackles this campaign.
http://dosomethingwa.org
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-ammunition-idUSBRE90J02K20130120
http://igg.me/at/dosomethingwa
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Sir Finkus on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:22AM
I don't think the shattering would be a big deal. Based on the little I know about the technology, it actually looks like it'd work pretty well at preserving the numbers, since they are at the back of the bullet. Finding even a few fragments would probably narrow down the potential purchasers by quite a bit.
I have two main objections, aside from that pesky 2nd amendment.
First off, as has been proven time and time again, we simply cannot trust the government with a database. They claim they won't datamine, but if they ever want to confiscate firearms you can bet your ass they're going to consult that database and compile a list.
I also am suspicious of the group's motives. We've got a company proposing that their (patented I'm sure) process be integrated into a rather large industry by law. It's a government mandated monopoly that's prime for abuse. These kinds of collaborations between government and private industry are manipulative, unfair to the populace, and unfair to companies competing with those that get these kinds of laws written.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 3, Touché) by Username on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:49AM
You’re assuming the criminal isn’t going to melt the numbers off like they do on the guns.
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:47AM
Way too difficult. Easier to just not buy your ammo in Washington. It's not that long of a drive to Idaho from anywhere in the entire state to stock up on anonymous ammo.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday February 10 2016, @12:36PM
The other alternative of "not buy in WA" is shoplift or outright steal.
Someone who is planning on very serious criminal activity is not going to be scared off by mere shoplifting.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:23PM
Someone who is planning on very serious criminal activity is not going to be scared off by mere shoplifting.
well there are ways around that but just because a system is not 100% effect does not mean it's worthless. i mean, if that was the case, nobody would use computers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2016, @03:45AM
Important details missing from your post:
Criminal laws that are highly (risibly) ineffective, ludicrously easy to circumvent, place a burden on the public and interfere with fundamental rights are not worthless.
They have a vast negative worth, and should be avoided like the plague.
This bears all the hallmarks of political thinking: SOMETHING MUST BE DONE ... this is something, therefore we must do it.
Other posters have already pointed out the massive barn door sized holes in this plan, but I might be the first to point out that the supreme law governing this kind of legislation is the law of unintended consequences.
Perhaps the most damning thing I can say about these politicians is: "Well, they MEAN well."
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:49PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Sir Finkus on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:04PM
Yeah, I am because the number is etched on the back of the bullet and would require that it be pulled out, filed, then reinserted.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:52AM
First off, as has been proven time and time again, we simply cannot trust the government with a database. They claim they won't datamine, but if they ever want to confiscate firearms you can bet your ass they're going to consult that database and compile a list.
i don't disagree but why do you think they are going to confiscate firearms? without that particular threat, it's a harmless database that is used to identify people who murder other people with firearms. given the upside, what makes you think there is so much of a threat of your firearms being confiscated to nullify it? mass shootings are a regular occurrence and they still aren't confiscating guns, so what do you think would cause them to change now?
(Score: 2) by Sir Finkus on Thursday February 11 2016, @09:41PM
Because the US is an outlier when it comes to our weapons laws, and there is a lot of pressure to make gun ownership laws less liberal.
I hate to Godwin the argument, but when Hitler wanted to kill the Jews and other undesirables, he didn't start by sending them off to the gas chambers. He started by making a list of Jews and requiring that they register. The "Registration -> Regulation -> Confiscation" scheme is a pretty common pattern used by governments to erode rights.
I think most gun owners wouldn't mind if there was such a system in place, they just don't trust the government with that kind of power. It's a justified fear.
I'm also sick of being put on so god damn many government lists. The state doesn't need to know everything about it. I pay my taxes and try not to break the law. I go to jury duty and can establish my citizenship and which congressional district I reside in. That's pretty much all the information that I believe the government should require me to provide while participating in lawful activities. We (as a country) need to think long and hard before we allow the government to build yet ANOTHER database.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday February 11 2016, @10:10PM
I think most gun owners wouldn't mind if there was such a system in place, they just don't trust the government with that kind of power. It's a justified fear.
justified fear? really? guns are already registered and yet nobody has come for your guns! why would registered bullets be any different?!
(Score: 2) by Sir Finkus on Friday February 12 2016, @03:23AM
None of my guns are "registered", and that's normal in most states.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Friday February 12 2016, @05:11AM
and yet my point still stands. why would they start because of bullets with serial numbers?