Re: Gunpowder taggant solution

Igor said:
> I think that the gunpowder taggants are not as bad as it seems at first
> sight. EVen if all gunpowders are sold with taggants, and if there is
> enough people wishing to defeat them, they can simply organize gunpowder
> mixing parties at gun shows. After several such parties, the taggants
> might become completely useless.

I'm woefully ignorant about reloading, but would this really work?
Would you mix your high-quality smokeless with Tim's homebrew black
powder, Toto's pebble-ground Canada Red Doobie Mix, and Bell's
stinkbomb components and take away the average?  Or are different types
of powder visually distinct enough or similar enough in effect to mix
and match effectively?

	Jim Gillogly

Jim Gillogly wrote:
> Igor said:
> > I think that the gunpowder taggants are not as bad as it seems at first
> > sight. EVen if all gunpowders are sold with taggants, and if there is
> > enough people wishing to defeat them, they can simply organize gunpowder
> > mixing parties at gun shows. After several such parties, the taggants
> > might become completely useless.
> 
> I'm woefully ignorant about reloading, but would this really work?
> Would you mix your high-quality smokeless with Tim's homebrew black
> powder, Toto's pebble-ground Canada Red Doobie Mix, and Bell's
> stinkbomb components and take away the average?  Or are different types
> of powder visually distinct enough or similar enough in effect to mix
> and match effectively?

I am perhaps even more ignorant, but I think that if you mix the same
kind of gunpowder (XYZ's BLAH # 123 gunpowder for example), then there
is no problem. But of course mixing different kinds may be asking for
trouble -- I have no clue about that.

Also, a gun owner could simply buy gnu powder in various places and
mix the batches.

	- Igor.

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

> Also, a gun owner could simply buy gnu powder in various places and
> mix the batches.

Ayeee!  Just what we needed!  Free Software GnuPowder. :) From the folx
who broght you Emacs. :)

(sorry had to be done!)

-- 

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    |Prying open my 3rd eye.  So good to see |./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were      |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run  |\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were....            |.....
======================= http://www.sundernet.com ==========================

Correct URL for the ATF list of explosive materials is:

   http://jya.com/atf050198.txt

ATF published on May 1 its annual "1998 List of Explosive
Materials" subject to regulation under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 40,
Importation, Manufacture, Distribution and Storage of Explosive 
Materials:

   http://jya.com/atf050i98.txt

This list of ingredients might be used to mis-tag home 
mixes -- or ID the mixers' traces on implements.

At 12:52 PM -0700 5/16/98, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
>Jim Gillogly wrote:
>> Igor said:
>> > I think that the gunpowder taggants are not as bad as it seems at first
>> > sight. EVen if all gunpowders are sold with taggants, and if there is
>> > enough people wishing to defeat them, they can simply organize gunpowder
>> > mixing parties at gun shows. After several such parties, the taggants
>> > might become completely useless.
>>
>> I'm woefully ignorant about reloading, but would this really work?
>> Would you mix your high-quality smokeless with Tim's homebrew black
>> powder, Toto's pebble-ground Canada Red Doobie Mix, and Bell's
>> stinkbomb components and take away the average?  Or are different types
>> of powder visually distinct enough or similar enough in effect to mix
>> and match effectively?
>
>I am perhaps even more ignorant, but I think that if you mix the same
>kind of gunpowder (XYZ's BLAH # 123 gunpowder for example), then there
>is no problem. But of course mixing different kinds may be asking for
>trouble -- I have no clue about that.
>
>Also, a gun owner could simply buy gnu powder in various places and
>mix the batches.

I don't know the particular details of the "taggant" proposal (in terms of
which problem it's trying to solve). But here are some generally true
comments:

* For smokeless powders, i.e., _not_ black powder, the powders are
semi-visually recognizable. So Bullseye is noticeably different from Unique
and 2400, for example.

* However, smokeless powders are worthless for bombs. (Black powder is
almost worthless, by modern standards. Much easier to make your own
plastique.)

* If the goal  is to trace shootings, as oppose to bombings, then the focus
would be on smokeless powders. However, very few Bad Guys are into
reloading, so....

* The only way such a law can be useful is to crack down strongly on
ammunition resales, loans, gifts, etc. And a monstrous nightmare of
traceability, identity checks, etc.

(And what to do with those of us who have several cases (1000 rounds/case)
of various kinds of ammo? (I surmise dimbulbs like Diane Feinstein, Sarah
Brady, and Barbara Boxer think they can "outlaw" this old ammo, or cause a
gang banger in LA to shoot only freshly-purchased ammo.)

And so it goes.

--Tim May


"The tree of liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of
tyrants...."
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist              | black markets, collapse of governments.

Tim May wrote:
> * For smokeless powders, i.e., _not_ black powder, the powders are
> semi-visually recognizable. So Bullseye is noticeably different from Unique
> and 2400, for example.

Is mixing them dangerous?

> * However, smokeless powders are worthless for bombs. (Black powder is
> almost worthless, by modern standards. Much easier to make your own
> plastique.)

I thought that plastic explosives were hard to make. Is that wrong?

	- Igor.

On Sat, 16 May 1998, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

> Tim May wrote:
> > * For smokeless powders, i.e., _not_ black powder, the powders are
> > semi-visually recognizable. So Bullseye is noticeably different from Unique
> > and 2400, for example.
> 
> Is mixing them dangerous?

Taggants in gun powder are inherently dangerous. They frequently cause a
loss of stability of the powder.
> > * However, smokeless powders are worthless for bombs. (Black powder is
> > almost worthless, by modern standards. Much easier to make your own
> > plastique.)
> 
> I thought that plastic explosives were hard to make. Is that wrong?

Making plastic explosives is easy. No, I am not going to post the recipe.

-- Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to> PGP v5 encrypted email preferred.
   "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"

Lucky Green wrote:
> > I thought that plastic explosives were hard to make. Is that wrong?
> 
> Making plastic explosives is easy. No, I am not going to post the recipe.

If _I_ knew the recipe, I would have posted it, at least anonymously.

I respect you a lot, Lucky, but in this case you are behaving like
an asshole.

	- Igor.

At 02:52 PM 5/16/98 -0500, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
>> I'm woefully ignorant about reloading, but would this really work?
>> Would you mix your high-quality smokeless with Tim's homebrew black
>> powder, Toto's pebble-ground Canada Red Doobie Mix, 

	... and Bill's Delaware Punch black powder.
...
>Also, a gun owner could simply buy gnu powder in various places and
>mix the batches.

Is "gnu powder" available from the Free Explosives Foundation?


				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639