Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hrdwareguy
Actually, it is in the State Senate, and has been passed out of committee.
|
Not according to the article. I'm going by what I've got, here. Where did you read that it's in the Senate? I'd like to read the article, if you have it.
Quote:
|
Yes, currently random testing is done. Random testing with the proposed legislation would be difficult. You aren't adding a custom serial number to a box, all 50 rounds in the box have to have the same serial number. That serial number is also printed on the outside of the box.
|
So they custom make one shell (and bullet) to go in the box with the
same serial number as the other ones in that box. That's what I meant when I originally posted. It's still not hard to do.
Quote:
|
Yep, it would be a robot, controlled by a computer. When was the last time your computer fucked up and didn't work right?
|
Two things. First, it's not a personal computer running Windows ME. If it was, I'd agree with you. It's a ocmputer designed for exactly one purpose - they don't fuck up as often. Second, more importantly, it's not like the laser is going to be anywhere NEAR the powder. The casing and the bullet get engraved BEFORE the bullet is assembled. Only an idiot would do that near the actual propellant. I think the point of having a laser on the factory floor is moot, because it would take major human retardation for it to be a safety concern. If basic precaution is taken (say, having the laser engraving machine in a different room from the powder?), there's no danger.
Quote:
|
What about people that reload and sell remanufactured ammo?
|
Like I said - regulate that practice. Introduce ammunition recycling programs, run by the manufacturers themselves. That way, you both know which serials go into a new box, and revenue for the manufacturer goes up. Of course there's overhead - which is why I think this should be a federally funded (or at least assisted) venture. This is one of the things I was talking about when I said "this proposal needs a lot of work."
I did read about the Brandon Maxfield situation, and I think the family had a very good case. The gun couldn't be unloaded with the safety catch on. That is a
major design flaw, one which causes a severe safety hazard. Obviously most of the fault lies with the family and (especially) the babysitter. But that doesn't mean the gun manufacturer shouldn't be held responsible for their faulty design. However, this is a different situation (a gun manufacturer versus an ammo manufacturer), and this discussion is for another thread, anyway.
I agree that having the ballistics database would be more effective than the serialization, but I think having both couldn't hurt. I was under the impression (obviously, I was wrong) that most states already required the spent shell casings to be submitted after a gun is purchased. However, this is also costly, which is the main argument against serialization. Both of the cost money. Does that mean they're bad ideas? No.
It also has many similar pitfalls - for example, what about black market arms? They aren't registered, so how does it help? As I stated before, I think that's a poor argument against a law; my point is that the problem exists for either system.
And like I said before, I don't
know whether serialization is a good idea. My main point is that most of the arguments against it are irrelevant, and it really comes down to the money.