Ballistic "Fingerprinting"

[konradptr 0]

The most incredible part about this is- with all the sniper action- Washington DC has always had the strictest gun control, and highest murder rate. I would also assume that this NON-law-abiding citizen (read mass murderer) did not buy this rifle in a legal manner. By definition, all the laws in the world would not deter this criminal...

------------------------------------------
Getting banned isn't that bad......

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Washington DC has always had the strictest gun control, and highest murder rate.

Hhmmm...if I was a criminal that's where I'd go. Find any respectable looking person and rob, rape, murder, them. After all....they are probably law abiding and there's a 99.999999% chance that they aren't armed. Try that in Atlanta or Houston. I'm sure the odds will be against the criminal.

[bmcd308 0]

Quote

If you do no crime, how does this effect you in any way?

I sort of can't believe that you are not kidding, given what I have read from you in other threads. But assuming you are serious, I will try to lay it out.

First, it will dramatically increase the cost of manufacture of firearms. This will lead to higher retail prices. This will lead to fewer people owning them. This is the only and I repeat ONLY impact that this legislation will have.

How do I know this? Because I know what ballistic fingerprinting is.

BF means that they fire a round and keep a database of the marks the breechface leaves on the case and that the barrel leaves on the bullet. But remember that every (yes, every) time a gun is fired, it permanently alters the shape of the breechface and barrel. It is not a slam dunk for a ballistic fingerprinting expert to definitively say that two bullets were fired from the same gun even if they were fired in succession (i.e. test bullet is the very next time the gun is fired after the crime bullet). In order to get around it, all you would have to do is either fire the gun a few times to change its "ballistic fingerprint" or, if you are really slick, take a file and put a scratch on the breechface so that it will leave a different mark. Or replace the firing pin so that it will leave a different mark. Or use an abrasive cleaner to clean your barrel so that its lands and grooves are a few thousandths different. Or....

Ballistic fingerprinting is nothing more than a scheme by freedom hating people to try to exercise more control over everyone. They have found, in the bleeding heart left, a sympathetic group who do not question the real value of their proposals who will promote them with good intentions. And unfortunately, there are so many members of the bleeding heart left in the media who are willing to repeat the nonsense over and over that, after a while, it starts to sound reasonable, even to people like you.

We live in a country where people are free. If you f**k up, we have jails and electric chairs. But until you f**k up once, the risk that you will f**k up is a risk that the whole society has to bear. That is the price of freedom. Please read Chile Relleno's sig line sometime. Our boy Ben was right.

Hope this straightens you out and makes you want to vote libertarian but that you go against your conscience and just vote for the more libertarian of the electable candidates until such time as a libertarian is an electable candidate.


BMcD...

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

[bmcd308 0]

Quote

Obviously I don't mind background checks, since a very thorogh one was done when I got my CCW here in Texas.

I, on the other hand, found the one that was done on my here in Tennessee invasive and offensive. Why should I have to prove I am "worthy" to exercise a right given to mankind by God and guaranteed to me as a citizen of this country? When the government gets to require me to have a license to exercise a right, it is not really a right anymore, is it? It become a privilege granted by the government.

BMcD...

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

[Cajones 0]

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???

The laws of physics are strictly enforced.

[bmcd308 0]

Quote

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.

If you agree that there was no National Guard at the time the Constitution was written, then you see the magnitude of the problem the citizens of this country are facing. Supreme Court Justices are among our most trusted government officials, who take the strongest oath to uphold the Constitution and who should be of sufficient character to take that duty seriously.

Let's hear from those who wrote the Constitution, so we can see if they actually meant to write that "Given that firearms are a privelege of the elite class and that it is necessary for government to have a monopoly of violence in order to properly subjugate the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to be steadily eroded by legislation over the next 300 years."

Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Quoting 18th Century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764.)

Benjamin Franklin: "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Historical Review of Pennsylvania, (1759.)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia when properly formed is in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms..." Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788.)

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776,) Jefferson Papers 344, (J. Boyd, ed. 1950.)

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self defence." A Defense of the U.S. Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-88.)

James Madison: The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." The Federalist #46.

Thomas Paine: "...arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thoughts on Defensive War, (1775.)

Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." During Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention, (1788.)

George Mason: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...to disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." During Virginia's ratification convention, (1788.)

BMcD...

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

[bmcd308 0]

With the possible exception of the night in highschool that a couple of cheerleaders had way too much tequila, I really can't think of anything wrothwhile that Satan has ever done for me.

BMcD...

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

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Ballistic Fingerprinting sounds to me like just another gun law which would
restrict the rights of honest gun owners yet will do little or nothing to catch
gun criminals.

How will it restrict the rights of honest people?

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

[freeflir29 0]

bmcd308,


Nice group of quotes. Too many have forgotten what this country was founded on. I haven't but I hope that I never have to prove it to anyone. I came very close once. It was rather scary. If I never have to face that question again it will be too soon.

[Guest]

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???

I think the remark was meant to compliment the following:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Thomas Jefferson, in The Declaration of Independence

No one on Earth had ever made so bold a statement. We think of it as "duh" these days, but back then, the "Divine Right of Kings" was still in vogue. For these colonial punks (surely, that was what the Crown thought of them) to say that this was baloney, and that The Rights of Man resided with the individual was the most wildly radical idea the world had ever seen, and heretical to boot. It challenged authority on the most fundamental level, calling into question the very concept of government itself, and said that men have the RIGHT to govern themselves!

(Insert angels with trumpets here - hehehe)

This "ballistic fingerprinting" hooey is just another way for the timid and fearful to buy themselves a phony sense of security at the expense of the rest of us.

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[wildblue 4]

Quote

How will it restrict the rights of honest people?

Maybe 'restrict rights' is a little strong, but it would cost them money for one. It also just doesn't seem right to some people - kind of an invasion of privacy. How would you feel if every new car that was built was painted a fraction of a shade off color, and somewhere the exact shade of your new car was in a database, in case you ever ran over someone and didn't stop, or hit another car and didn't stop. Some people wouldn't be perfectly fine with that, others would. And then what happens when Doctor Bob the forensics wonder, determines that your shade was possibly invovled in a hit-and-run?

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[freeflir29 0]

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.

[freeflir29 0]

Oh....and with that....I'm done with this thread!

[mnischalke 0]

I love you, man!

Very well researched and spoken. Any time you are on the Right coast, I got a museum downstairs I'll gladly give you a tour of.

peace,

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[skypig 0]

I am a cop in Texas and I have only one thing to say about this subject and I'am sure everyone has heard it before
"GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE"

SCR#14778

[steve1 5]

"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

[jfields 0]

Sigh....

Did you have to? Did you really have to start slinging mud?

You said:

Quote

Ballistic fingerprinting is nothing more than a scheme by freedom hating people

Quote

members of the bleeding heart left

Quote

I am "worthy" to exercise a right given to mankind by God and guaranteed to me

A little less rhetoric and a few more facts would go much farther to persuade those who don't share your opinion. Others have managed to keep it more civil.

You also said:

Quote

Supreme Court Justices are among our most trusted government officials, who take the strongest oath to uphold the Constitution and who should be of sufficient character to take that duty seriously.

Yes, so I'll quote one:

In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as

Quote

the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.. .[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see — and I am a gun man.

He continued to say...

Quote

The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...Surely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ‘Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms...

Okay, I'll go with the opinion of the Supreme Court Chief Justice on that one. You said:

Quote

First, it will dramatically increase the cost of manufacture of firearms. This will lead to higher retail prices. This will lead to fewer people owning them.

Just like automotive airbags that save lives every year? I think the higher cost issue falls apart pretty easily. If mandatory, the volume would decrease the cost to a miniscule amount.

You also tossed out Ben Franklin:

Quote

They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Please define the line that specifies an essential liberty from a non-essential liberty. Do we have the right to carry a small pocketknife on the street? A hunting knife? A pistol? An automatic rifle? A rocket launcher? How about a personal, portable nuclear weapon?

Yes, that is an exaggeration, but the point remains that somewhere a line must be drawn between what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. The "punish those that abuse the 'right'" theory wouldn't hold up too well if pissed off people went nuking the cities they lived in. Yes, it is ridiculous. I hope you see that as excessive "freedom". Do I carry a pocket knife? Sure, and I think I should be able to do so. But where is the line between the extremes?

It is up to reasonable people to debate the nature and extent of weapon regulation, but not the philosophical merit of it, which should be undisputed.

Someone else (Mark, I think), tossed out Thomas Jefferson:

Quote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I agree with that, and Mark's sentiment about the profound and meaningful impact of the statement. I care about it deeply. I care about my inalienable rights. Since all men are created equal, yours rights stop where mine begin. Your rights are no more important than mine. The role of government, and the Supreme Court in particular, is to find the balance of how much rights a person has before they interfere with the rights of another.

Quote

Hope this straightens you out

Thanks, but I need no straightening out. I'd suggest you read more carefully before you launch off on a tirade.

[jfields 0]

On that note...


I started this thread, so I'll hijack it.

Constitional Right to see lots and lots of BOOBIES?

[coho21 0]

I second that!!

J
YSD#0009

[mnischalke 0]

You are so on to something here.

Actually twice as many children under the age of 10 drown in 5 gallon buckets than are accidentally killed by firearms. Seriously, like the kind they use for drywall mud.

BAN BUCKETS!!!!!!!!!!

(had to edit this, I undershot the age)

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[bmcd308 0]

Actually, I didn't mean to sling mud, nor do I agree that the passages you quote are "rhetoric" as opposed to fact, with the possible exception of the second one, and I will allow that opinions may differ as to whether their hearts actually bleed.

The Supreme Court Justice reference was meant to cause you to reflect on whether the Justices of the SC were actually performing their duties to uphold the Constitution or if they were allowing the pressure of the moment to influence their decisions. I think we can both agree that they are, we are just likely to disagree about whether that is a good thing.

Warren Burger loses some credibility with me because of his reference to "Saturday Night Specials", a racial epithet that was intended when coined to make white folks afraid of black folks with guns. Its etymology is from the phrase "n****r-town Saturday night", a racist phrase about the goings on during weekend evenings in poor parts of town. The term SNS has lost much of that baggage over time, but only because it was a catchy and convenient term.

In fact, the whole idea that items of personal protection should have to be expensive is somewhat classist, anyway.

In fact, lots of gun control has historically been based on racism and/or classism. Right here in Tennessee, we had a law during Reconstruction that said that the only arms you could carry in public places were Colt Army and Navy revolvers. These revolvers were quite expensive, and few blacks could afford them. Confederate Officers would have had to supply their own, however, so a good number of wealthy white folks already had them.

As to Franklin, he was peripherally involved in drafting the Constitution and was actually an Anti-Federalist, if memory serves me correctly. As such, it is safe to say that the Bill of Rights would have been a compromise designed to protect what his camp would have considered the absolute minimum "essential liberties."

With regard to the airbag analogy, demand for cars is fairly inelastic in terms of units. While demand for a particular car is elastic due to the large number of competing manufacturers, the demand for all cars is farily inelastic - after all, pretty much everybody needs one.

That analogy does not play well with firearms, because demand is elastic. Higher prices lead to fewer total firearms sold. The hoplophobes know that and think it is a good thing. I know it too, and I think it is a bad thing.

As for the line that separates what we can own from what we can't, I will say that at the time this country was founded, an individual could buy the most terrible weapons of the day, canon, and mount them on ships of war.

Is it practical for a pissed off person to nuke a city? Not right now, so I'm not sure you have to worry about it.

There is a concept that I believe in called "discretion of force." Some weapons, such as a nuclear missile, offer very little discretion of force to their operator. There is a delay between decision to fire and impact, and there is incredible risk of unintentional damage. Hand grenades are similar. In the 5 seconds between spoon launch and explosion, a lot of stuff can change in the target area. I use that as a personal rationalization for not allowing people to own nukes and hand grenades. But that is the same type of slippery slope we are talking about now, so I recognize the inconsistency in my own views.


>>yours rights stop where mine begin. Your rights are no more important than mine. <<

This is the jfields I am used to and the reason I was surprised by your initial post. I really think that if you explore this very idea, you'll start to agree with me more.

You and I each have a right to protect ourselves from harm by others.


>>The role of government, and the Supreme Court in particular, is to find the balance of how much rights a person has before they interfere with the rights of another. <<

Another statement with which I strongly agree, only I word it a little differently - "The true function of just government is to preserve liberty."

You and I have similar founding principles, we just reach different conclusions on this issue based on those similar founding principles.

>>but I need no straightening out. I'd suggest you read more carefully before you launch off on a tirade. <<

The straightening out part was meant as a joke, but I guess I should have smileyed it. The only part of it that was serious is that I still have this idea in my head that you and I think alike on these issues. And sorry if I have been on a rant. I feel strongly about this, and I may have overstated my case. I really didn't mean to go on a tirade or give a lecture, nor do I think that you need a lecture from me about it. As I said before, I think that you and I tend to approach these questions from a common set of premises, we just reach different conclusions. As is true of anyone who argues a point, I think that my conclusion makes more sense than yours. You probably feel the same way. I'm just the one of the two of us who is being evangelical right now.

BMcD...

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

[jfields 0]

I saw that you replied to my post and cringed, but after reading it, I am pleased that I took the effort to write what I did, and that you did as well. We return to civility.

With regard to Warren Burger, I’m not saying that he was perfect. Nobody is. I didn’t know about the etymology of the term Saturday Night Special, but the essence of what he said remains valid. His quotes coupled with his position give credence to the fact that we remain a nation divided on this issue. If he feels that the Second Amendment is misrepresented yet powerless to have a substantial impact on public opinion, how is the average citizen to feel?

I honestly don’t have any opinion on the classism and the historical cost issues of personal protection. I won’t dispute any of the history you cited. I also see it as irrelevant to the modern issues of weapon ownership.

To me, the added cost of ballistic record keeping is low enough to be completely worthwhile, if the technology works. The relative accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the techniques is the crux of that issue. If the cost of each weapon went up by, say, $10, what effect would that have on the overall firearm demand? That would be for the round(s) and the tiny amount of time that would be required to collect the physical data. All the database maintenance and functionality costs would be spread out across the general public, both weapon-owning and otherwise, in the form of taxes. In a scenario such as this, I see the change in demand being negligible, and the cost to taxpayers being paid back in solved crimes, if the technology is viable.

Quote

As for the line that separates what we can own from what we can't, I will say that at the time this country was founded, an individual could buy the most terrible weapons of the day…Is it practical for a pissed off person to nuke a city? Not right now…

When the country was founded, the most deadly weapon of the age could not significantly impact very many people. At the time, it was reasonable that people be allowed to own firearms, because the potential abuse carried a relatively low cost. And people couldn’t carry around cannons. In the modern age, the potential damage of abused technology has increased exponentially. I see it as having escalated out of the realm of what is reasonable to have in the hands of the public.

I admitted that my personal nuke example was ridiculous, but it illustrates that the progression from pocketknife to nuke is technologically feasible. Both items exist, as do hundreds of things on a sliding scale between them. I’m looking for where on that scale we should draw the line and say, “This is as much as the public should have.” I see the Second Amendment as being clearly tied to the defense of the nation, which is not how the gun lobby is interpreting it. The Supreme Court has repeatedly seen it as I do, denying that there is a fundamental right for anyone to own whatever weapon they want.

Gun control is all about the “slippery slope”. Both extreme viewpoints are worried about losing control in the direction they don’t like. The NRA and the gun lobby often portray themselves hideously. In an effort not to lose their perceived right to bear arms, they defend the right to own absolutely anything. To the vast majority of people somewhere between the two polar opposites, they look like idiots. The inane examples and analogies that get cited make the proponents seem like immature schoolchildren fighting over the best toy. The mockery shown in this very thread by comments such as the “Let’s ban buckets. More kids die from that than handguns” (or something like that) only strengthen the resolve of the opposition.

On the other side, the anti-gun fanatics annoy me as well. I was in the military. I qualified expert on the M-16 and the 9mm. I threw grenades, fired an M-60, and did other stuff. You know what? It is fun! I am not afraid of firearms. I respect them. I believe in their existence in defense of our country. When people cry about how “guns are bad”, they look as stupid as people do when they retort, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” There is nothing wrong with going to a range and firing a weapon there. It is an exercise in skill. I don’t believe that everything needs to be banned. Unlike the anti-gun fanatics, I see that there are times when ownership may be justified by a person that isn’t in the police or military, but not uniformly available to everyone.

But in their defensive posturing, both extremes hinder the progress that both sides should honestly be working toward. Take the “gun show loophole” that anti-gun folks get irate about. Is it really necessary to buy a gun without a background check? Why is that practice being defended? When gun advocates say that gun laws only hurt the honest people, they refuse to admit their own contribution to the ease in which criminals obtain guns. It is the same type of issue with a waiting period of significant duration. Without having any effect on who can buy and who cannot, increasing a waiting period will weed out some of those who would only use the weapon in a period of rage. Legitimate owners would pick out what they want, say, “Thanks. I’ll be back in a month to pick it up.” No sweat.

My wife teaches in an elementary school. This month, a child brought unfired bullets in to school. When he got caught showing them off, he ended up in the principal’s office. The parents were called, as were the police. The child said he got the rounds “out on the playground”. The cop called BS on that, noting that there was no chance of that, judging by the immaculate condition of the bullets. It came out finally that he just brought them from home. The same kid that brought ammunition in from home could just have easily brought it in, loaded in the dad’s gun, to which he also had access. Then show-n-tell with his buddies becomes a dead child.

If everyone were responsible in their firearm ownership, I would have no problem with common household ownership. But people prove again and again that they are not capable of handling the responsibility. You can say, “But I am”. Fine. But if you take 100 people that all say that, chances are that it won’t be true in all those cases. Whatever the frequency of accidental child death due to handguns, it is too high. If the gun owner kills themselves in an accident, I don’t really care. I also don’t care if two gun owners kill each other. That is their problem. But the problem comes in when someone innocent dies due to the negligence or hot temper of firearm owners. That is where the issue of personal rights comes into play.

I think the frequency of innocent people having their rights infringed upon has become too high. That applies to many things. I feel that if there were a lot less firearms, a lot less would be in the hands of irresponsible incompetents. It was in another thread, but I am also harsh on drunk driving. I’d be in the “one strike, you’re out forever” lobby. People should be held strictly accountable. I’d say if your weapon is used by your wife/kid/neighbor to hurt someone, you go to jail with them. Don’t like that possibility? Don’t own the weapon.

When people say to just punish those that abuse their rights, it is an injustice. For the dead person, it is too damned late. Their rights were taken from them, as was their life. Retroactive punishment of the offender in our current legal system values the rights of the criminal more than the victim. It is appalling. Manslaughter? Some jail time, then parole. Murder? Ditto. The victims won’t be getting second chances. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” begins with “life”. I want my best chance at my rights, and maybe that means that the privilege (not right) of firearm ownership needs to be restricted somewhat. I’m not asking them to give up their life in exchange for an apology afterwards.

Damn. This is nearly a book. Basically, I’m in between the extremes, annoyed at both sides, but leaning toward more regulation of firearms as the means toward improving everyone’s chances of enjoying the rights we all value.

[billvon 2,400]

>Ballistic fingerprinting is nothing more than a scheme by freedom
> hating people to try to exercise more control over everyone.

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?

[RevJim 0]

Do you chop a hard/no pull?
Serious question.

It's your life, live it!
Karma
RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1

[quatorze 1]

Quote

Do you chop a hard/no pull?

Serious question.

hijacker

I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle