Ice slugs? lol

Mate, why do you have to go and weaken your own arguments like that?

It's becoming increasingly difficult to take you seriously.

Bugsy,

You laugh at the use of ice slugs; I fired them very successfully back in 1963 in experiments at a RAEME Base Armoury; we also fired ice bolts from crossbows.
High powered air guns will also fire ice bullets.
Despite what Myth Busters may have found it is possible to fire a lethal ice projectile from a shot gun.

Is mise,
There may be the odd genius-among-thieves that takes the trouble to completely obscure all forensic evidence. I don't think such are really the majority of gun crime. Scorings in barrels *DO* wear, yes, but even incidental ones identify bullets and barrels years later, so your objection is a bit thin, you probably meant to say "does not always work perfectly". Deliberately machined or laser etched ones could last the life of a barrel and be straightforwardly readable like a barcode, as with microstamping of breech and firing pin.

I understand that gun manufacturers regard it as "too hard", but since the technique works well on existing minor defects, how hard is it really to add a few more in an organised manner? So far they have not distinguished themselves from sullen teenagers faced with a chore, and are not convincing.

Yes, I am *aware* that shotguns don't leave equivalent marks on shot, but shot and *most* rounds are produced in batches. Given the sensitivity of current spectroscopy, different batches can already be distinguished using their incidental metallurgical differences, just like gold bullion can be roughly dated by the isotopic mixture of atmospheric trace components trapped in the metal. I am proposing that commercial producers simply add further contaminants in a sequence of combinations that makes a more readily detected metallurgical "barcode". A smaller device might then be sufficient to read it. *obviously* some will make their own, and their particular melt will also be distinctive, possibly *very* distinctive unless they melt actual bullets as many lead alloys are specialised for their purposes. *some* traceability is better than *no* traceability. *I* would be happy for my gun to be etched so that every single round could be identified as mine if found, and for that to be as straightforward as junior constable checking my rego plate with an "app". If detectives don't like my suggestions, fine. They presumably are looking at their own best options. Though I understand the US "ATF" have sought such markings, and I reckon their ballistics fellows know a thing or two about guns.

Rusty

Hi there RUSTY CATHETER...

Unfortunately Rusty - IS MISE is quite correct in general terms, with his various descriptions of untraceable ballistic residual and vestigial propellant compounds. He's also correct when he avers some variants can be fashioned in one's home workshop.

A 'sabot' based round ensures the projectile or filling therein is properly positioned in the barrel of a gun, to preserve accuracy and to ensure that (usually commercially produced) 'filling or load' is carried precisely to it's target.

As an example sabot rounds are now known within the industry as 'BFS' loads, so named after the Frenchman who developed the first anti-tank penetrating round. Such innovative ordnance includes, but not limited too, HE (high explosive) similar to RDX C3 or C4 an excellent 'entry tool'. Or worse, the frightening and horrific military designed 'flechettes' used extensively in Vietnam by the Yanks.

Today, US law enforcement agencies use such innovative descriptive terms for their 'entry rounds' such as the Federal 'Hyrda Shok' the inimitable 'sledgehammer', or the 'Bolo' anti-riot round etc. etc.

RUSTY CATHETER, I'll not persist any further with this stuff, as I realize most people don't particularly like engaging in this boring, 'ballistic masturbation', as it's popularly known in the business ? As I said at the outset, IS MISE is, in general terms, quite correct in what he asserts, with ballistic typing and comparison.

Rusty Catheter,

"..poorly delineating my furious agreement with current gun law" is how you came to mislead others on the provisions of Queensland's regulations you say? What about you then clarify for the benefit of the many here who do not understand the regulations and look to apparently knowledgeable posters here to clarify things for them?

Also, if you are intending to have a word with the local country (I assume) Senior Sergeant you might want to ask him how much time trained officers in the station are being required to spend on such ridiculous mundane tasks as printing the voluminous, redundant bureaucratic paperwork that the that the cooperative licensed citizens are required to complete, while the ferals are not receiving any police attention. You might also ask him how many trained officers he has has available for patrols for example.

You might also ask him what value he sees in conducting random police inspections in the homes of the respectable citizens who have met all of the requirements pf licencing and are leading exemplary lives, along with their families.

That is NOT something that the noisy gun control activists would ever countenance where known criminals are concerned though.

Because unlike ordinary citizens, criminals have rights and floggers like the Green Left and 'human rights' lawyers to say so and conduct ferocious lobbying on their behalf! Yet any illegal guns are held by offenders and almost always those are drug-dealing Middle-Eastern bikies. They use them too!

contd..

continued..

Rusty Catheter,

If you do have a current firearms licence and your remarks make that dubious (maybe you were a gun owner years ago), you should have a think about what exactly is required outside of the sole robust and effective control that is the licence itself.

The rest is time-wasting bureaucratic pap that wastes the time of the Firearms Branch, local police and irritates the very people the police rely on for support, order and intel, namely the good citizens who do obey the laws.

Then again, maybe you can give some examples of where the personal details and other information held in the existing gun registry have deterred a criminal or led to his arrest? Gun registries are laughed as 'White Elephants' overseas, where the experience with them has proved they are damned useless and waste police resources. But you would add to that!

It is the blind leading the blind. Amateurs who are clueless about risk assessment and authoritarian hoplophobes who don't care about having laws based on evidence.

Apart from yourself, all licensed individuals, their clubs and associations recognise the rather obvious fatal flaw where the Howard-inspired gun control 'initiatives' are concerned, which is that all of the bureaucratic paraphernalia (and there is a mountain of it) do squat to deter or collar offenders.

That is because criminals DO NOT obtain licences (wouldn't qualify anyhow) and they certainly are NOT going to be buying from legal sources or registering their tools of trade.

'Gun control' and its narrative have nothing to do with preventing crime. It is solely aimed at taking away the rights of the ordinary, law-abiding citizens, disarming Australia. However, in the troublesome times that are developing in its area of the world, Australia would be advised to encourage more young people to take up target shooting and putting some real effort into school Cadet units as examples.