It's happening: Senator to propose bill regulating black powder in wake of Boston Massacre - Polidicks

[QUOTE=viper shtf;40363709]Not to be an ass, but technically black powder isn't even an explosive. It's a propellant. It Burns ultra fast, instead of detonating and creating a blast wave.[/QUOTE] You aren't being an ass, you are being informative. Thanks for the distinction. I still wouldn't be particularly opposed to requiring background checks for people who want to buy it. [QUOTE=don868;40363690]Why ban black powder? Lawn fertilizer is just as explosive, and you can buy a truck load of the shit without anyone raising an eyebrow. You can't buy a crate of black powder without every cop in the state crawling up your ass.[/QUOTE] How would the cops know? Telepathy? [QUOTE=Falubii;40363636]I don't really think this politician had a prior agenda against black powder. Maybe they did, but it's hard to believe they had any really strong convictions before the bombings.[/QUOTE] He proposed the exact same legislation in 2003. That doesn't mean the argument isn't stupid though. A guy who wants to legislate black powder in 2003 wants to attempt it again after a tragedy involving black powder bombs. You can disagree with the legislation, I myself dunno how much it it will help in the long run, but I hate it when people resort to emotional pandering over logic. [editline]21st April 2013[/editline] Actually I'd really love an answer to the question of how long legislators should wait before trying to tackle issues pertaining to a national tragedy, whether it be guns, black powder, cars, building codes, fire safety etc. A well-defined period of time would be really convenient.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;40363943]99% of the retailers that sell black powder are actually on excellent terms with the police, and by default, CAN and DO call the cops when someone shady is trying to buy an abnormal amount of powder, or purchases too frequently. There are also age requirements as to purchasing it (IE a 12 year old cant go out and buy a pound of it)[/QUOTE] While I'd doubt the 99% figure, if it's already a common occurrence what is wrong with just making it a rule? Again, background checks, not banning, not strict regulation, just "Oh hey this guy might be up to no good so he can't buy stuff to turn into bombs". Yeah, again, dunno how much it would help, especially since you can make bombs out of a lot of materials from any home improvement store, but I also don't see how such a small measure could possibly hurt anyone. [QUOTE] They should probably wait until the media circus has had its fill, so instead of creating "feel good" legislation, that panders to their constituency, they can create legitimate legislation, that actually does good.[/QUOTE] So basically someone who wants to legislate something because of a tragedy should wait until no one is talking about it and it's out of the general concious before trying to propose anything, even the very lightest of regulation? Seems like a terrible idea. Also I guarantee you 99.98% of his constituency didn't vote for him because he is known as the Black Powder Guy on Capitol Hill. Why do you think this legistlation is illegitimate?

Ok see now when you actually take the time to argue about something you might actually reach an understanding with some people because I didn't realize a $20 pound of black powder would go up to $70 minimum from background checks alone. Yeah, that's probably something that should be looked in to. That said, there are background checks for everything these days. Wouldn't it be a simple matter of simply making it lower cost?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;40364161]Ok see now when you actually take the time to argue about something you might actually reach an understanding with some people because I didn't realize a $20 pound of black powder would go up to $70 minimum from background checks alone. Yeah, that's probably something that should be looked in to. That said, there are background checks for everything these days. Wouldn't it be a simple matter of simply making it lower cost?[/QUOTE] I seriously doubt it's as simple as just making them cost less, because if it was that easy then background checks would not cost as much as they do. Lowering the price of black powder to compensate for the cost of the background check wouldn't really work either, considering the manufacturer still has to make a profit and even if it was hypothetically dropped to $1 per pound that's still a $51 minimum cost. They should do a study (if they haven't already) to see if black powder is used in enough crimes/by enough criminals that it warrants regulation like that. If it's only ever used in ridiculously isolated incidents, there's no way to justify the expenses.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;40364161]Ok see now when you actually take the time to argue about something you might actually reach an understanding with some people because I didn't realize a $20 pound of black powder would go up to $70 minimum from background checks alone. Yeah, that's probably something that should be looked in to. That said, there are background checks for everything these days. Wouldn't it be a simple matter of simply making it lower cost?[/QUOTE] The money has to come from somewhere.

First off it's fairly obvious we are running on the assumption that a background check for black powder purchases would cost $70. There is absolutely nothing that says it has to cost that much. Assuming though it does, maybe streamlining the process would work? I have no idea how the machinations of background checks work but requiring people to pay $70 to make sure they are legally able to buy a product costing $20 or less seems ridiculous. The problem is that is a lot of assumptions and baseless conjecture. [QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;40364295]They should do a study (if they haven't already) to see if black powder is used in enough crimes/by enough criminals that it warrants regulation like that. If it's only ever used in ridiculously isolated incidents, there's no way to justify the expenses.[/QUOTE] The main reason why I'm not fully on board with this is because as far as I can tell gunpowder on it's own is almost never used maliciously. If he was asking for it to be banned or severely restricted I would probably be against it, but background checks seem so harmless and logical that it's hard to argue against atleast the idea, if not everything entailed (ie, the price).

[QUOTE=Raidyr;40364992]First off it's fairly obvious we are running on the assumption that a background check for black powder purchases would cost $70. The problem is that is a lot of assumptions and baseless conjecture. [/QUOTE] No one but you have said that a background check would cost $70. And that was only said in the above quote. One guy gave a price range based on what other background checks cost, he then gave an estimated range of what the total cost of the final product would be. Of course any estimate of cost would be based on conjecture. Obviously this is not in place so we can not give you a definitive accounting of costs. To me, and many others, this is irrelevant anyway. Background checks for black powder do nothing but trick the stupid into thinking they are somehow safer then before. Even if black powder was declared illegal- it wouldn't matter (in the sense that bomb making supplies are plentiful, for sale everywhere, and impossible to completely regulate) If the government wants to do background checks- they're going to have to come up with an actual reason. Guns, for example; you can lose your right to own them. So requiring a check to see if your legally allowed to purchase one makes sense. The only way this could be more blatantly pandering is if the politician proposed this while standing in front of a hospital bed occupied by a recent bombing victim.

All of this stuff is pretty much illegal in Finland, and even the smallest rockets etc. are for +18 only. Unless you hunt, go to gun ranges or be a cop you cant posses a firearm.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;40365272]You do realize what a standard nics check checks for right? Criminal background and reported mental health issues(if a judge deems it needed to alert nics) the bombers would have passed a background check easily.[/QUOTE] How do you know that? [QUOTE=H8Entitlement;40365293]No one but you have said that a background check would cost $70. And that was only said in the above quote. One guy gave a price range based on what other background checks cost, he then gave an estimated range of what the total cost of the final product would be.[/QUOTE] I misread. Replace $70 with a cost of your choice. [QUOTE]Of course any estimate of cost would be based on conjecture. Obviously this is not in place so we can not give you a definitive accounting of costs. [/QUOTE] I'm glad you agree with me. [QUOTE]To me, and many others, this is irrelevant anyway. Background checks for black powder do nothing but trick the stupid into thinking they are somehow safer then before. Even if black powder was declared illegal- it wouldn't matter (in the sense that bomb making supplies are plentiful, for sale everywhere, and impossible to completely regulate)[/QUOTE] To me, and many others, background checks on propellants that can be used in homemade bombs seems like not such a bad idea. I don't know if it is completely necessary, but it's certainly not stupid, nor are the people supporting it. [QUOTE]If the government wants to do background checks- they're going to have to come up with an actual reason. Guns, for example; you can lose your right to own them. So requiring a check to see if your legally allowed to purchase one makes sense. [/QUOTE] So background checks on guns make sense? Why not black powder? [QUOTE]The only way this could be more blatantly pandering is if the politician proposed this while standing in front of a hospital bed occupied by a recent bombing victim.[/QUOTE] But he didn't.

Because one explosion event clearly means that everyone in America is going to try and become a Demoman

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;40365390]How do I know what they check for? Or how do I know that they would pass? I know what they check for because I asked, plain and simple, its not a secret. How would they pass? The FBI already did a check on them and they came out clean. Also preforming background checks on propellants.. like the common propellants found in spray cans.. you can make a decent sized bomb out of a few spray cans. Also the cost of an NICS background check is usually 50$, NICS is the phone in system that FFL's use for background checks. How do I know? Buy a weapon off the internet, then look at how much the FFL charges you to transfer.[/QUOTE] So then I guess my next question would be: Why the hell is it so expensive? The problem seems to be the details and not the overall idea of background checks.

Damned bureaucracy.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;40365343] So background checks on guns make sense? Why not black powder? [/QUOTE] I briefly explained why checks on guns make sense. It's because you can lose your right to possess them. Can you even lose your right to possess black powder? Is there a minimum age before you can buy it? Are felons barred from purchasing black powder? As far as I can tell- the answer to all three is no. So what exactly would we be checking? To put it more bluntly- background checks for black powder don't make sense because I could make it in my kitchen with little trouble. No one is going to do that however. Why, you ask? Because I could make a much better bomb easier using other common household items. Why would I want to spend money on a program that a/ is unnecessary and b/won't work. I'm convinced this is a useless idea designed to make the stupid feel safer. I have yet to hear why it's needed or how it would work. If you honestly believe its needed and would work feel free to try to convince me. But keep in mind everything can be used in a way that causes others harm. That in of itself is not enough for me to support government regulation.

My position was never that it was needed, just that I don't find it nearly as egregious as I guess you or other people in this thread do. Maybe it's just an opinion thing.