Doomed, In So Many Ways
In the great scheme of “how can we control people’s lives more and more”, it’s difficult to come across one more costly, more time-consuming, and more easily defeated than this one:
Ammunition coding technology works by laser etching the back of each bullet with an alpha-numeric serial number. Then when a potential criminal purchases a box of 9mm cartridges, the box of ammunition and the bullets’ coding numbers would be connected to the purchaser in a statewide database. When a bullet is found at a crime scene, the code on the bullet can be read with a simple magnifying glass and then be run through a statewide database to determine who purchased the ammunition and where, providing a valuable investigative lead.
The devil, as they say, is in the details, and the detail required in this effort is astonishing. So let me go through it, step by step.
- Manufacturing. I don’t doubt that the technology is available which would enable ammunition manufacturers to put a unique identifying number onto each and every cartridge case they manufacture. Note that I said “available” and not “affordable”, nor “desirable”—and I leave it to my engineering friends to debate how practical the initiative is. However, the actual imprinting of the ammo itself is only the tiniest part of this nonsense.
- Data management. I understand this topic extremely well, and let me tell you, it is in this area where the whole initiative falls apart. Let’s just go through the steps, one by one.
a.) Ammo maker manufactures ammo, encoding each of several billion rounds with unique ID.
b.) Ammo makers have to set up and maintain a database, to ensure that numbers aren’t duplicated within a caliber—and because ammo has a very long shelf life, you’d probably have to have an alphanumeric numbering system to allow for non-duplication over a period of at least twenty to fifty years. Add the manufacturer’s source code number, and some kind of generation code (database geek speak, ignore if you don’t understand it, but trust me, you need them). Let me tell you: any way you etch it, it’s a long number—which has to fit into a short space—and as numbers grow more microscopic, the reading thereof becomes more problematic.
c.) Ammo makers set up the system which “matches” output code to sales database. Here’s where it gets interesting. Does the manufacturer have to inform the state to whom they’ve sold a batch of numbered items? Ammo makers rarely sell directly to consumers: the typical chain is mfr --> distributor/wholesaler --> retailer --> consumer (and the chain may sometime contains a couple of extra links).
d.) Does each link of the chain have to submit a sales database to the state? Probably not. The retailer would have to provide an “end-user” list to the state—which would mean that Georgia Arms, for instance, would have to send their database to the state, and so would your local retailer, Jim’s Guns ‘n Ammo. Anyone hazard a guess as to how much it would cost to set up a data transmission pipeline of this size? And I’m not talking about the pipeline from the stores/sellers back to the state, which is a relatively simple exercise. No, I’m talking about the size of the data reception pipeline at the state’s “data center”. It’s a daunting task which bedevils financial institutions, retail organizations and any system which has to cope with a constant, huge flow of numbers—and what that means is you’re looking at a best-case scenario where at least 10% of the data will be lost, routinely but haphazardly. (What that paradoxical statement means is that the state would lose about 10% of the data each week, but not necessarily from the same source, or at the same times.) Given the fact that government of any size doesn’t know its ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to data, I’m going to predict with complete confidence that about 50% of the data will be lost or otherwise made unusable by data corruption and mismanagement. Now let’s look at other aspects of this issue. - Compliance. As many legislators have discovered, issuing an edict is not going to guarantee obedience.
a.) My initial guess is that almost every foreign ammunition manufacturing company will refuse to comply with this edict—which could, and probably would lead to an import ban on ammo, which, for the people who are pushing for this scheme, is a feature, not a bug. If that’s not to happen, then it would be up to the U.S.-based importers to set up a laser-etching facility to number the billions of rounds of live ammo which land on these shores. If you can’t see that happening: nor can I.
b.) More important, however, is the fact that a number of states are going to refuse to comply with this edict. In other words, some states will refuse to incur the cost and inconvenience of setting up a data management system which many would oppose on philosophical grounds—more on that later—and therefore, a large hole in the system would occur.
c.) Key to all the legislation is a date by which all “unencoded” ammo should magically disappear. Here’s one example:“No later than January 1, 2011, all noncoded ammunition for the calibers listed in this act, whether owned by private citizens or retail outlets, shall be disposed.”
Leaving aside just how the millions of rounds of ammo are going to be “disposed of” (and I suspect that one particular method would not find favor with government), I am left curious as to how, exactly, this is going to be enforced. All of which leads me to the last point.
- Policing. Exactly how is a state going to enforce this system? Let me look at just a few examples.
a.) If Nevada ignores this system, and California enforces it, can anyone hazard a guess as to how long it will take for some enterprising souls to start moving un-numbered ammo from NV into CA?
b.) Is CA going to put “ammo inspection officers” at every gun range, to ensure that shooters only use encoded ammo?
c.) What would the penalties be for the use, or possession of unencoded ammo? Fines? Misdemeanors? Felonies? Gun confiscation? - Sabotage. Over and above all the above issues, comes a simple fact: this system will be sabotaged. It will be sabotaged by the manufacturers, it will be sabotaged by the distributors and retailers, and it will be sabotaged by gun owners. (If anyone cannot see the creation of “ammo swap meets” as a result of this, they haven’t been thinking about it enough. And trying to prevent private sales of ammo between gun owners is going to be about as difficult, as expensive and invariably more useless than trying to prevent the private sales of guns.)
And now we arrive at the final analysis.
We have seen that gun registration is not only unworkable, but ineffectual. Canada’s much-touted handgun registration has never, to my knowledge, helped solve a crime, nor has it enabled the police to track down a criminal. All it has done, in a tiny number of cases, is to say that this gun was used in this particular crime—but that doesn’t mean that the original owner of the gun was identified as the eventual criminal user.
If gun registration has failed so dismally, what chance does ammunition registration stand?
Here’s what will happen: the system (if passed by the various legislatures, and it’s a BIG “if") will be trumpeted by the Usual Suspects as a prime crime-fighting weapon. Millions of taxpayer dollars will be spent, and the system will eventually, and quietly, fail. Canada’s “millions” of dollars to create a gun registry ended up costing “billions”, and failed. Are we that arrogant / stupid to think that our efforts would do any better?
And I haven’t even begun to talk about the philosophical shortcomings, and potential Constitutional issues involved in this putative legislation.
This is one of those typical blue-sky projects that is typical of so many attempted by politicians who don’t know what they’re talking about. Their eyes are so firmly fixed on an eventual goal that they fail to see all the obstacles which make that goal unattainable—and how much this failure will cost.
Of course, we all know that all the high-sounding noises about “crime detection” and “saving lives” are a camouflage of lies. The actual goal is to make ammunition more costly, less available, and more problematic to purchase.
We gun owners will not be fooled.
