From: hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 08:18:25 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Stop the presses -- Anti-terrorism bill not that bad
In-Reply-To: <19960805204130906.AAA148@maverick>
Message-ID: <9608052116.AA09050@Etna.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> First off, a large number of 
>guns used in homicides are revolvers or derringers (anyone got the 
>numbers?).  These guns don't spit out the shells.  So, it would be 
>utterly useless to do so.  

The shells are removed sometime or other. Nothing is a 100% solution
but anything that gives the criminal an extra thing to worry about 
improves the chances that a mistake is made.

Many people go to jail because of fingerprints on shell cases.

>The second problem is the number of shells 
>expelled in the US every day.  I doubt there's enough room on the 
>butt end of a shell to print that number (it couldn't be printed on 
>the sides, as this would screw up the fit of the shell, and possibly 
>weaken it).  

I doubt that more than 32 bits of info will be required. Thats not 
that difficult to imprint.

>And, it'd be almost impossible getting gun manufacturers to
>pay for the equiptment that it would take to emprint serial numbers.  

Not a problem, that type of machinery is a standard type of 
industrial machine. Might be expensive to adapt the lines but 
I doubt it.


>The third number is that cartridges 
>are recycled.  Aside from reloading your own, there's a large number 
>of people that sweep up brass from gun ranges to reload themselves.  
>The idea that someone swept up the brass could get almost anyone off. 

Not an issue. A person may have an excuse that explains why
the blood is in his car or his fingerprints are on the knife but
a conviction depends on more than one piece of evidence. If 
there is information that gives the police a lead it is 
usefull.

At present the police are investigating the purchase of white 
powder - checking each purchaser out who fits the Olympic
bomber profile. That is a lot of work for a much weaker lead.

If a person says that they fired at a range then you have 
narrowed the search scope to the guys at the range.

>The final problem is the paperwork.  Cops today can barly keep up 
>with the paperwork involved with the Brady Bill.  Could you imagine 
>if they had to keep track of AMMO purchases?

Not a problem, thats an opportunity. I build very large, very
high reliability computer systems. I can build machines that
deal with several million transactions a day for less than a 
million and run them for less than a quarter million a year. That
is cheap when one considers the cost of investigation saved.

>The provision to give people the means to commit treason against the 
>government are in the Constitution.  That's why the second amendment 
>is there -- to empower the people to protect themselves against the 
>government. 

Making that argument defeats your case. Irespective of the framers
of the constitution nobody in Congress or the Administration believes
that you have a right to take up arms against the government. In
fact they are scared of the militia movement and the NRA. Every time
you make that argument you make it harder for people to accept your
case. 

Its like hearing a Marxist spout stuff from Capital to support a
civil liberties. Regardless of wether the content makes sense the
form of the argument is a complete turn off. 

I used to side with HCI before I started talking to the 
talk.politics.guns people. That convinced me that they were a threat
to the security of the country - even before McVeigh sent me a
mail defending his 2nd ammendment rights that looked very 
much like yours. Regardless of whether he is guilty or not I
still regard him and those that hold his views to be as 
serious a threat to the USA as the Red Army Faction were in
Germany, or the Red Brigades in Italy or the IRA in the UK.

If people carelessly justify terrorism they are fueling that
fire. Up until now the US has not had a serious terrorist 
problem. If terrorism becomes widespread then don't imagine
the constitution will be a protection. Thomas and Reinquist 
are not going to stop measures to "protect the nation" even
if like the WWII internement of Japaneese nationals they are in
gross violation of the constitution. 

If you think the wiretap bill is bad think on this, all guns
of all types banned except where held by special license.
Checkpoints at major road intersections. Stop and search
patrols in city centers and the army on the street. Its not
at all far fetched, the UKgovt took less than a year to 
introduce such measures in Northern Ireland. Constitution or
not, don't expect that the US Congress won't make a similar 
response.


	Phill