Ballistic "Fingerprinting"

[SpeedRacer 1]

How about Rectal Fingerprinting, so we could tell for sure who ACTUALLY farted??

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Casch 0]

ROFLMAO That would come in handy!

[VectorBoy 0]

Quote

How about just banning them, then people wouldn't get shot in the first place

Yeah ban em like hard core drugs. That cured that problem. Then I can start my mobile machine works right next to my mobile meth lab and make a killer profit from two banned products. Duh! Glen.

[bmcd308 0]

>>Assume that there was a cheap, easy way to uniquely identify a round from any given gun. Would you still be against it? If so, why?<<

Oustanding question, and the kind that assists greatly in advancing the debate.

Yes, on general principal.

It is a little like taking a sample of every baby's DNA so that crime scene evidence can be tied to a name. I oppose that, too. The basic implication of both policies is that everyone is a potential criminal, and this small invasion of privacy will allow us to better determine which potential criminals have become actual criminals.

I very much disagree with this line of reasoning.

I have not thought it through enough to give a response worthy of your question, which truly cuts to the heart of the matter, and my description above is intended to acknowledge the apperance of reasonableness of the tradeoff.

However, I am troubled by the idea that we would all be treated as potential criminals, and I am further troubled that someone who purchases a firearm somehow has more criminal potential than someone who does not. I'd like to write a stirring response to your question, but I'm afraid I'll have to make a vague reference to "innocent until proven guilty" and put off until a time when I'm better able to wax eloquent on the issue to more fully state my (admittedly, at this point, undeveloped) case.

BMcD...

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Assume that there was a cheap, easy way to uniquely identify a round from any given gun. Would you still be against it? If so, why?

Hell no, I wouldn't. I would also prefer that it be unalterable too. Current ballistic fingerprinting can be altered (by changing barrels, scarring the inside of the barrel) or change over time (although it requires a tremendous amount of firing to change it). The alterability isn't a reason to not do it though. Fingerprinting can be altered and change over time but we still use it.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

It is a little like taking a sample of every baby's DNA so that crime scene evidence can be tied to a name. I oppose that, too. The basic implication of both policies is that everyone is a potential criminal, and this small invasion of privacy will allow us to better determine which potential criminals have become actual criminals.

The biggest difference is that taking a baby's DNA is an invasion of an individual's body where we are given a reasonable expectation of privacy by the Supreme Court. A gun has no reasonable expectation of privacy as to its identity just like your car. Everyone has to register their car. What is the difference?

If this will save people's lives why shouldn't we do it. If in the sniper case we could have ID'ed the owner of the gun that killed the first victim it could have possibly saved the lives of nine people. Isn't that worth a little inconvenience on the part of "law abiding citizens".

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

If in the sniper case we could have ID'ed the owner of the gun that killed the first victim it could have possibly saved the lives of nine people.

Since I'm so sure that the weapon the sniper/son were using was purchased legally, never stolen, had the original barrel, had the original bolt, not smuggled in from another country, it would have been real easy to trace.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Since I'm so sure that the weapon the sniper/son were using was purchased legally, never stolen, had the original barrel, had the original bolt, not smuggled in from another country, it would have been real easy to trace.

Just because there are ways to defeat the technique does not make it invalid. You can defeat fingerprinting but we still use it. You can defeat DNA but we still use it. Even if it was purchased illegally the police will still have a lead. It will still point to the original owner and they can interview him/her to get leads. It if was stolen then they can start looking at suspects in the crime where it was stolen.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[jfields 0]

I see taking people's DNA samples in a pre-emptive fashion and making a database of accurate ballistic samples as completely different.

I'm against the DNA example, because it is an invasion of the individual's privacy. The weapon is totally different. What is the fundamental function of a firearm? To injure or kill. It is a reasonable assumption that a given firearm may be used to injure or kill. Most potential firearm injuries or deaths are likely to criminal, or at least justifiably investigated as potentially criminal at some point.

That is also why I think the constant comparisons and sarcastic calls to ban this or that because it is "more dangerous than guns" only highlight the logical flaws in that reasoning. It drives me nuts. "Ban buckets". From the DWI thread, "Ban cars". Moronic. While people could die from both of those, neither has injury and death as its primary function. They are designed for something else and only have the slightest tangential affiliation with intentional harm. They may cause inadvertent harm, but that is different.

If something's purpose is harm to others and infringe on their right to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", I don't see keeping a record of it as an infringement on any right to privacy.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

How will it restrict the rights of honest people?

This one is easy.....OK...someone said earlier that the accuracy was ~38%. I think that's high but we'll go with that number. My gun is in a data base. Someone comits a crime with the same type of gun as I have. I live near or just happened to be near the crime scene. My gun gets confiscated. The "authorities" scribble a serial number in the side to track it while it's in their custody. It lays on an evidence shelf for lord knows how long and gets rusty. The cops...having no other suspects decide that since I was in the area......and my gun has a "similar" balistics print that there is enough circumstantial evidence to charge me. So...here I am...a law abiding "cooperative" citizen I am now charged with murder or whatever. Even if I go to court and I'm found innocent.....the rest of my life has a cloud hanging over it. Remember Mike Mullins? How about my personal story of this kind of bullshit. How about a good friend of mine that was on a "suspect list" on a rape case because he thought he should "cooperate" with a law enforcement investigation. He knew he was innocent so why should he need a lawyer....right? I'll tell you that if I wasn't smart....and had the money to hire good attorneys I would probably be doing 8-10 in Levinworth about now....if not in a box or living on the run. That's why I vehemintly support my right to bear arms. It's my only LAST RESORT. I'd much rather live on my feet than die on my knees.

Why is it not acceptable for your gun, but it is acceptable for your car to be registered and carry a highly visible ID mark on it? Car plates can be readily altered, but no-one argues that they should be abolished because of that.

Ditto with airplanes. My plane has ID letters a foot high painted on its side (that costs me money) and is registered in a national database...

Both my car and my plane may be confiscated by law enforcement...

[Cajones 0]

Can't the primary function of a gun be to feed a family? Can it not also be to protect? Maybe we should collect fingerprints of all the forks (they can be used for killing people, too), and knives, and especially pillows - I've seen people on TV killed with pillows (and know of an actual case where it was used to kill someone)... Oh, and hey - all pianos - cause people can be killed with piano wires... Let's not forget everyones gloves; My second "bare-handed" (that's what it's called in my circles) was actually done with gloves on. How about those pesky icicles people get killed with on occasion? We could organize a task force to go around and 3-dimensionally profile every icicle - in case one is used in a murder...

The laws of physics are strictly enforced.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

"Even if it captures only a handful of murderers, seems like a good bargain to me."

Probably the biggest killer of children today is drowning. Maybe we should ban all swimming pools. It would undoubtedly save a few lives.

I don't agree with that line of thinking. Steve1

Where did I say that guns should be banned?

At least try to be honest in your reply.

[PhreeZone 15]

>Can't the primary function of a gun be to feed a family?

Is'nt that under the kill function? I think you'll be extremely hard pressed to find a family living in America today that lives 100% on the food they kill with guns. Its way easier to raise your own animials and kill them then it is to go hunt for them.

>Can it not also be to protect?

That would be a injure or kill function again...

I'm all for guns and have a few of my own, but I've never seen a case yet that a family starved to death since their gun was profiled in a database. Yes, it infringes on rights, and yes it will add expense and yes its easy to alter... but saying profiling is wrong since the primary function is to provide food and not anything else, i have issues accepting that one all the way.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Cajones 0]

I think you might have missed the point here... It's all about the intention of the person behind the gun. There are a vast majority of people who own guns with ZERO intention of using it on another human being. Even police officers and the military favor peace over gunfire. The intention of some knives is to kill human beings. The intention of some piece of piano wire - out there, somewhere - is to kill another human being. There may be someone, right now, buying a gun (on the street - no registration, no paperwork, maybe even a homemade "zip" gun - with no ballistic fingerprint) for the exclusive purpose of killing another human being.
Bottom line - I don't approve of knee-jerk reactions, and I hope this case doesn't provoke any.

The laws of physics are strictly enforced.

[jfields 0]

Quote

Can't the primary function of a gun be to feed a family?

250 years ago, sure. In today's society, I think if we answer honestly, the general answer is no. I'm not sure what the hunting laws are like where you live, but I don't know if the limits are high enough to keep a family fed. And how many families have enough private land to support enough game anyway? That is a reflection on how society has changed in that time period. How many people actually hunt their own meat, compared to the number that buy it at the grocery store?

Quote

Can it not also be to protect?

Sure. But if you use your gun to kill someone in your home, ballistic evidence may be a part of the investigation, even if it is ruled as self-defense.

The discussion of forks, knives, pillows, pianos, gloves and icicles is absurd. I hope you realize that. While they can be used to harm others, you have yet to present a compelling example of how they are designed exclusively to cause harm, as is the case with firearms.

[Cajones 0]

Designed exclusively to cause harm??? I do some superb target shooting with most of mine. That's what I bought at leat one of them for. Oh - the poor target - look at how much pain the paper is in... :: tears ::

The laws of physics are strictly enforced.

[Kennedy 0]

ok, I haven't read the whole thread, will when I have more time. [feel free to flame]

First off, a few states ALREADY have 'fingerprinting.' Maryland is one of them. Guess how many crimes have been solved using this. Go ahead, guess. NONE!! Not one single crime was closed because of this 'fingerprinting.'

You know what this scheme, sorry, "plan" IS good for? Registering firearms. And we all know what that leads to, no matter what they tell you.

Also, someone mentioned toolmarks changing. I have working in a Firearms Examination Unit. I can tell you. The toolmarks [impressions and striations left on bullets and casings] DO in fact change. It may take a few hundred or even thousand rounds. That's a lot? That takes a long time? I worked with an examiner on a case where a street thug who enjoyed drive-bys had actually fired so much ammo through the barrel that the barrel didn't even look like it had been rifled [had twists put into it] and the firing pin impressions looked like a rectangle [signifies Glock] instead of a perfect circle [like most pins] that it had started as. This is not uncommon. Thugs don't exactly take good care of their guns.

Quote

On a large scale, I also don't see that there would be much cost involved on a per gun level.

I've got bad news for you. This would require IMMENSE amounts of money to either beef up the BATF or start a whole other bureau.

There is already a system, IBIS and NIBIN, that saves and makes available toolmarks left on any weapons that come into FEUs as evidence. Those two cost huge amounts of money, but are at least aimed at guns that are or have a good of having been used in crimes.

Ballistic Fingerprinting is a bad idea. Peariod.

Besides, what part of shall not be infringed do you guys not understand?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Given by god??? Wow! Now, that must be important! Did Satan ever give us any rights??? Or, does Satan take away rights given by god???

You people only have rights until somebody stronger takes it away from you.

Self defense is a right. As long as you can do it, anyway. Free speech is a right, until somebody stronger closes your mouth for you.

God never gave anyone anything other than a chance, as far as I've seen. The bible, koran, torah etc say otherwise, and that's their choice to believe. I'm just saying what I've seen. Of course, I thank whatever IS out there that I've got my chance.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[steve1 5]

Kallend,
I'm not saying that you said that guns should be banned. I just think that the analogy I used was a good one. And maybe you should explain why this was not an honest reply. Every gun law that comes along is supposed to be quick and easy and not infringe on a gun owners right. But the truth is most of these gun laws are not at all quick and easy, and just don't do much to capture criminals either. Most gun owners are smart enough to realize that most of these great ideas to control gun crime are bullshit, and they do little more than take away the rights of honest gun owners. Steve1

[Cajones 0]

::: clapping hands ::: HooYaaa!

The laws of physics are strictly enforced.

[jfields 0]

Kennedy,

In the twists of this thread, we've already discussed the technical issues relating to keeping ballistic records. I've already stated that if it isn't very accurate, there is no point in doing it. That pretty much finishes up the question I had when I actually began the thread.

Quote

Besides, what part of shall not be infringed do you guys not understand?

However, I was unable to get the information about ballistic fingerprinting without getting dragged into the debate about gun ownership as a whole. If you go back and catch up, you'll see that the prevailing view by the courts is that individual, non-military, non-police gun ownership is a privilege, not a guaranteed right. We've also discussed the variation in interpretation of the Second Amendment. My take is that unless you are in the militia (National Guard, Army, police force), you have no "inalienable right" to bear arms, thus, nothing to be infringed by restricting the privilige.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Kallend,
I'm not saying that you said that guns should be banned. I just think that the analogy I used was a good one. And maybe you should explain why this was not an honest reply. Every gun law that comes along is supposed to be quick and easy and not infringe on a gun owners right. But the truth is most of these gun laws are not at all quick and easy, and just don't do much to capture criminals either. Most gun owners are smart enough to realize that most of these great ideas to control gun crime are bullshit, and they do little more than take away the rights of honest gun owners. Steve1

Please explain how BANNING swimming pools is a good analogy for indentifying guns. I see zero similarity between these concepts.

BTW, I am not anti-gun, I have had firearms training courtesy of the US Army and the UK police. I am against the use of bogus statistics and bogus logic to oppose any and all suggested controls on guns.

[AggieDave 6]

---cross posted from the gun ownership thread---


Here's some data:

Texas had a serious crime rate in the early 1990s that was 38 percent higher than the national average.
Since then, serious crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the nation as a whole.
Murder rates have dropped 52 percent, compared to 33 percent nationally.
Rapes have fallen by 22 percent compared to 16 percent nationally. This is due to Texas inacting CCW laws.


According to “The Dallas Morning News” over 85% of the crimes committed with a firearm, the criminals obtained the weapon through illegal means.

According to the “Arms Rights and Liberty Information on the Internet” website during the 1990s these laws became impossibly strict.
i. These are similar to the third stage of the Bradly Bill which is currently being debated in about 6 different state’s legislatures.
ii. Firearms are generally NOT allowed unless for sporting uses, such as some shotguns and rifles for hunting game. Also, the only ammo allow are sporting loads, self defense loads such as Federal Hydroshock or Black Talon are strictly forbidden.
b. Shown are some charts from the “Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales” website showing a comparison of the crime rates from England and the United States from 1981 to 1995.
i. As shown, England’s crime rates have been steadily on the rise, getting worst as time progresses.
ii. The crimes shown are all violent crimes against individuals.

(see attatched documents taken from Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales website)



Here is the list of sources for that data:

Texas’ Concealed Carry Law Works. NCPA. 5 Nov. 2001 http://www.ncpa.org/press/nr080900a.html

Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96. The United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 5 Nov. 2001
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crvs.htm

RESULTS ARE IN ON BRITISH GUN LAWS. Arms Rights and Liberty Information on the Internet. 5 Nov. 2001 http://www.rkba.org/comment/brown/England.html
Texas’ Concealed Carry Law Works. NCPA. 5 Nov. 2001 http://www.ncpa.org/press/nr080900a.html

Please note, no NRA "Propaganda" was used making this post. AND this is not someone else's research, this is something I did for myself a while back

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [/url]

I list the four times the Supreme Court has upheld the view that the Second Amendment does not infer a right to firearm ownership outside of the National Guard.

Gotta love that an amendment made in the late 1700s applies only to a FEDERAL national guard conceived on the early 1900s.

Question: How many times did courts at all levels say slavery was right? Segregation? Violations of free speech? Illegal police actions legal in court?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Besides, what part of shall not be infringed do you guys not understand?

The Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that the rights in the constitution are not absolute. It goes back to the old "yelling fire in the movie theater" analogy. Right to ownership is not being taken away by registering or ballistic fingerprinting. That is quite a leap you are taking.

Quote

It may take a few hundred or even thousand rounds.

It will take drastically more than that to make it unidentifiable with the original weapon. The fact that it might not work everytime does not make it an invalid technique. An example where one murderer fired a lot of rounds is interesting but most murderers and criminals do not. In my experience they are not the types that go out and practice marksmanship regularly.

You are right about the cost though. It would be immense. The BATF is not the only agency that has FEUs and does ballistic fingerprinting.

Quote

Guess how many crimes have been solved using this. Go ahead, guess. NONE!! Not one single crime was closed because of this 'fingerprinting.'

It is a lot less effective for a state to have fingerprinting than an entire country. It is too easy to transport weapons across state borders thus bringing in an unfingerprinted weapon. It is a little harder (not impossible though) to smuggle weapons into the US.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin