Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The terrorists fired over 200 rounds in last night's gun battle with police. [View all]sarisataka
(22,955 posts)47. Damn them gun nuts at the National Academy of Sciences
RECOMMENDATION: Detection markers in black and smokeless powders should not be implemented at the present time.
X-ray systems and dogs currently provide a strong capability for detecting bomb containers and unmarked black and smokeless powders in the scenarios considered by the committee, and most powder bombings currently take place at locations in which deployment of bomb detection systems is not practicable (see Table 1.4 in chapter 1). Therefore, the committee believes that the effectiveness of a marking program would be limited at the present time. Institution of a marking program would incur significant costs. At the current level of fewer than 10 deaths and 100 injuries per year and very few terrorist incidents, the committee believes that the benefits are not sufficient to justify such a marking program. If the threat were to increase substantially in the future and test data were available, benefits might exceed costs, and a marking program might be warranted. A marking program for black and smokeless powders would be justified only if three criteria were met: the frequency and severity of black and smokeless powder bombs were found to be high enough to justify marking; the markers first were thoroughly tested and found to be safe and effective under conditions likely to be encountered in the legal and illegal uses of the powders; and the social benefits of markers were found to outweigh the costs of their use.
X-ray systems and dogs currently provide a strong capability for detecting bomb containers and unmarked black and smokeless powders in the scenarios considered by the committee, and most powder bombings currently take place at locations in which deployment of bomb detection systems is not practicable (see Table 1.4 in chapter 1). Therefore, the committee believes that the effectiveness of a marking program would be limited at the present time. Institution of a marking program would incur significant costs. At the current level of fewer than 10 deaths and 100 injuries per year and very few terrorist incidents, the committee believes that the benefits are not sufficient to justify such a marking program. If the threat were to increase substantially in the future and test data were available, benefits might exceed costs, and a marking program might be warranted. A marking program for black and smokeless powders would be justified only if three criteria were met: the frequency and severity of black and smokeless powder bombs were found to be high enough to justify marking; the markers first were thoroughly tested and found to be safe and effective under conditions likely to be encountered in the legal and illegal uses of the powders; and the social benefits of markers were found to outweigh the costs of their use.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6289
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
117 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The terrorists fired over 200 rounds in last night's gun battle with police. [View all]
onehandle
Apr 2013
OP
People don't have a right to heroin. People do have a right to self-defense.
Nuclear Unicorn
Apr 2013
#31
And self defense means 100 round mags? Perhaps 1000? The right to own aircraft carriers?
EOTE
Apr 2013
#32
If mass-killing were its only purpose police wouldn't carry them for lone-criminal encounters.
Nuclear Unicorn
Apr 2013
#90
A reasonable limit would be what professionals and hobbyists find to be most practical.
Nuclear Unicorn
Apr 2013
#96
Non-existent scenarios? Like the one where you need to take on a dozen terrorists?
EOTE
Apr 2013
#103
It's not my fault if the gun nuts in this country make the only possible actions watered down ones.
EOTE
Apr 2013
#35
On the video - you can hear lots of gun shots - and "cracks" that were the explosions
jpak
Apr 2013
#37
And where and how they acquired all that firepower. Legally or illegally... nt
riderinthestorm
Apr 2013
#13
And when did they acquire it? They may have been stockpiling for some time. nt
BootinUp
Apr 2013
#16
The police can use untagged ammo - and I see no evidence that taggants are a safety issue
jpak
Apr 2013
#74
Right. Unless these two morons had full auto assault weapons. I would doubt that.
cliffordu
Apr 2013
#66
There is no such thing as a full-auto assault weapon. Cops *may* have full auto weapons
Recursion
Apr 2013
#104