Building a Comprehensive Ballistics Database? 170
Linuxathome asks: "I'm a resident in the Washington DC-Baltimore Metropolitan area. If you've kept up with the news lately, you've probably have heard about the serial killings. I realize that this question may spark a political debate, but my question pertains to current technology. The gun law debate has been recently re-ignited. And the hot topic of current is in regards to fingerprinting firearms. Gun rights supporters argue that the technology behind fingerprinting is not reliable (see John Dingell). Dingell estimates there are approximately 50 million gun owners in the US (I don't have estimates of how many guns are out there). Is an image database of 50 million spent casings not feasible?" What issues, both technical and political, would there be surrounding the creation (and the current hold up) of such a database?
Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
The constitution gives you the right to own guns. It does not give you the right to own them anonymously.
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason that the Constitution does not include things like privacy and anonymity is that these things simply were not problems back then. Want to have a private conversation? Walk out into the middle of a field, and just talk. Want to be anonymous? Move to the next state over and just start using a different name. Enshrining privacy and anonymity simply would not have occured to the Founding Fathers, because they could not imagine a situation in which the government would ever be in a position to deny them to its citizens.
The closest thing to what you want is the 4th Amendment [cornell.edu].
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:3, Insightful)
For me, fingerprinting a firearm is a lot different that fingerprinting a person, although the dangers of a big national DB of either has similar risks. It is interesting how this is playing out in Congress. A lot of them are just realizing now that they actually live in an urban environment, and they and their families are just as much in the line-of-fire as the rest of the community. A lot of times gun control issue split along urban/rural lines.
The point is to ask whether the situation would be better if a lot of people in the DC suburbs carried firearms. Unless they are all well trained and not hot-heads, I think everyone is safer with the police chasing the criminals. What would/could you do if you saw this guy fire his gun? I know I'd have a lot better odds stopping him with my '88 Crown Vic than a handgun.
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:4, Informative)
Read the federalist papers. This exactly the type of privacy they had in mind. Do you know why the first battle of the revolution happened? The british came to confiscate arms and ball ammo.
For me, fingerprinting a firearm is a lot different that fingerprinting a person
For me its not any different. It gives the government a list of who has what guns and makes it that much easier to confiscate them. The idea of the second amendment is to protect me from just such an occurance.
The point is to ask whether the situation would be better if a lot of people in the DC suburbs carried firearms. Unless they are all well trained and not hot-heads...
Yes that is the question and every study thats been done proves that crime rates fall when concealed carry laws are enacted. Yes training is important and I encourage anyone who carries to seek training and to maintain that training. But it is not a requirement. Using a weapon is not difficult. Identify you target assest the danger and engage or flee.
I think everyone is safer with the police chasing the criminals.
The police do not have to duty to protect you! Period!!!
This has been addressed numerous times in court. See this study [ncpa.org].
What would/could you do if you saw this guy fire his gun?
How about performing a citizens arrest. With out a gun you are (pardon the pun) out gunned. But with a weapon you could confront and control the suspect.
I know I'd have a lot better odds stopping him with my '88 Crown Vic than a handgun
This is the same view most of the gun control advocates have. Just because you don't trust yourself with a firearm does not mean you can not trust me. And if you can not trust me you should have a gun of your own so that you can control me should I overreact to a situation in which you are involved.
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am concerned about the similarity (you chose not to quote that part), but guns are actually used in crimes quite a lot (let's not get into whether a gun owner is more or less likely to commit a crime). The point is that if a gun is used, it is by definition a serious and violent crime (even if just a threat). The second ammendment clearly points to the need to regulate guns, and fingerprinting doesn't mean you would always know who currently has the gun or their address, just someplace to start.
I know about the studies about concealed carry, but I still don't want this to be common, and particularly not without mandatory training and licensing.
No cops aren't required to protect you, but most of them are good people who are very interested in serving their community. There just aren't (nor do I want there to be) enough of them to be everywhere. Most of them would not hesitate to put their lives on the line to stop this guy, and they are well trained not to endanger the rest of us while they are doing it. Your comment suggests a lack of respect for those who do this very difficult job.
No, I would trust myself with a gun, I just have little or no interest in carrying one. I have fired guns, and I'm a pretty good shot within limitations. You make it sound like making a 'citizens arrest' is an easy thing. It's not, and unless you know yourself and how you will react pretty well, I would not recommend it. At the right angle, I'm pretty sure I could disable his van and still be able to drive away with my 4000+ pound car, and I think he would be caught pretty quickly. Of course, all of this is stupid hypotheticals, because nobody really knows how they would react in the situation.
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:4, Interesting)
I am concerned about the similarity (you chose not to quote that part), but guns are actually used in crimes quite a lot (let's not get into whether a gun owner is more or less likely to commit a crime)
About 582,000 of these reported murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults were committed with firearms. [usdoj.gov]
Individuals use guns as often as 2.5 million times per year to protect themselves. 90% of the time only brandishing the gun to deter the crime.
- Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law (Fall 1995), vol. 1, pp. 173, 185. (Specific issue is not online.)
The second ammendment clearly points to the need to regulate guns
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.
I assume you are refering to the "regulated" in regulated Militia. Your interrpritation is wrong. Madison makes it clear in the Federalist Papers that a well regulated militia is refering to a chain of command that the state would set up to manage the militia for the common defense. But he also makes it clear that the people will have the right to keep their own arms and that maintaining the militia under state control indefinatly is impossible and should not be attempted.
fingerprinting doesn't mean you would always know who currently has the gun or their address, just someplace to start.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fingerprinting you or your firearm is a violation of the 4th amendment. Its as simple as that.
No cops aren't required to protect you, but most of them are good people who are very interested in serving their community. There just aren't (nor do I want there to be) enough of them to be everywhere. Most of them would not hesitate to put their lives on the line to stop this guy, and they are well trained not to endanger the rest of us while they are doing it.
"There are approximately 654,600 officers employed to provide law enforcement services to approximately 265 million of the nation's inhabitants, an average of only 2.5 officers for every 1,000 individuals. This statistic, of course, does not reflect the average number of officers actively deployed or on duty during a particular shift. So face it -- self-defense is your job!" - Quoted from The Armerican Liberty Foundation - Statistics from
Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States (1998)," p. 291.
Your comment suggests a lack of respect for those who do this very difficult job.
Thats simply not true I have quite a large respect for police officers and infact have many friends who are employed as such. I simply do not fool myself into believing that they will be there when I need them. And instead realize that this is the land of the free and home of the brave. You can not have one without the other.
You make it sound like making a 'citizens arrest' is an easy thing.
I never said it would be easy. I stated that using a firearm was easy. Any police officer who has drawn his weapon in the line of duty will tell you its the most stressful situation imaginable. But defending our freedoms is not about voting and watching CNN its about the willingness to lay down your life for what you believe is right. You state that you would, given the choice, use your car to stop this sniper instead of a gun. I say that I would gladly stand between you, your wife, your child and any of your family with a weapon and be willing to die to protect you from him because I believe that stoping this sicko is more important than my life if it means stopping him from shooting someone elses loved one. When you accept and realize that life in America is not about your ablity to shop at Micky Dee's and Walmart, and is instead about eternal vigilance you will see that taking the steps needed to feel confident carrying and using a firearm should be your first concern so that you children and theirs can live in a free country too.
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong the 2nd clearly points to the need to well regulate the militia which were all able-bodied adult males who had the right to keep and bear arms as there were no standing armies at the time. Well regulated Militia as in Army Regulation
Sorry ladies it's historical not me. I served in the Army and National Guard with many fine women with whom I would go into combat with.
More on topic, rifle/pistol balistics change with use and are not that hard to change on purpose. A database would not be that helpful.
Re:Will you ppl get off this 'Constitution' thing? (Score:2)
It never ceases to amaze me how often Americans reach for the Constitution like it's infallible...
Its was written by men, so no it is not infallible but it is damn well thought out and based on a solid historic background addressing the issues that cause other governments to fall into dictatorships and tyranny.
I'm sorry I usually try not to insult people but that is not anywhere near an intelligent argument. See the above response. Our government is based on laws and presidents. The constitution is and enumeration of the rights the government has to control the populous. The Bill of Rights is a specific enumeration of the rights that the government cannot under any circumstances take away from the people. I could go on to explain how the 10th amendment is more or less been destroyed by a perversion of the commerce clause. But I'll leave that to an exercise of the reader.
When are you all going to realize that probably 99% of people who own guns don't use them to hunt food with it? When was the last time you someone shoot a deer with a handgun, then dragged the carcass home to feed the family? Why on god's green earth would you ever need an AR-15?
Have you ever even read the second amendment? Well here you go:
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.
Now let me break it down for you. First "A well regulated militia," refers to any able-bodied male. This is an established fact that the courts have ruled on. It does not mean the National Guard or any state run military organization. It's every able-bodied male in the US. Today that would include women as well ( Let me hear ya Second Amendment Sisters!!!).
Second "being necessary to the security of a free State". The founding fathers understood Edmund Burke, who said, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." Our freedom is not to be taken for granted. We must be willing to stand up and defend it with our lives. And so able-bodied men/women are needed to make sure that the "free state" exists.
Third "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Madison states in the Federalist Papers ( Which was a set of newspaper columns explaining the intent of the constitution, to the people who had just fought and lost loved ones why they would not have to fight such a battle again.) that every man should be armed and read to serve in the common defense of the state, but that requiring those men to assemble on a regular schedule to train would be impracticable and should as such not be attempted. Instead every man should have access to obtain the weapons needed to defend the state from all threats, foreign and domestic.
So as you can see your question as to owning hunting rifles is completely off base from what the founding fathers intended. Instead they absolutely intended every able-bodied American to own not only an AR-15 but also the latest and greatest in military small arms so that they could be called on to defend their freedoms at a moments notice. You can make your arguments that times have changed but history proves you wrong. There are plenty of socialist governments out there and if you don't like the constitution move to one of them. I along with a large number of others in this country believe in that the constitution is the finest form of government found so far and I'm willing to defend it no matter the cost.
what is so wrong with requiring not only your gun's fingerprint, but your own when you buy a gun???
This falls under the second of two facts that I feel most liberals refuse to accept:
One: People will die. Whether its an accident or and the hands of others, they will die. You cannot stop it. It will happen no matter how many laws you enact, it doesn't matter its gonna happen. (By the way more children die by falling into 5 gallon buckets than are killed by guns every year. Where is the ban on 5 gallon buckets? More people are killed every year by cars than guns. Where is the ban on cars?)
The Second Fact: There are people in this would who are evil! It's a fact! I should not even have to point to examples such as Hitler, Stalin, Saddam and this sniper. These are people who are bent on obtaining power for themselves.
Now once you accept the second fact you will see that by allowing the government to fingerprint me or my firearms I am opening myself up to the chance that one of these truly evil people will make use of that data to take away my arms and as such my ability to defend the freedoms I hold so dear. Do not tell me how I cannot compete with the army for I will point to Vietnam. Do not tell me in can't happen because I will point to the fact that the average German had no idea the camps existed in WWII and would have been appalled to fine out that they did. Besides the fact that the Islamic world has it out for us and if you don't think that what's happening in Israel isn't coming here you are kidding yourself.
Why do you hate/distrust your own government so much?
Who said I do... I simply understand my duty as an American and as such I am prepared to exercise the final recourse that the second amendment is. Defending our freedoms is not about voting and watching CNN it's about the willingness to lay down your life for what you believe is right. I say that I would gladly stand between you, your wife, your child and any of your family with a weapon and be willing to die to protect you from him because I believe that stopping this sicko is more important than my life if it means stopping him from shooting someone else's loved one. When you accept and realize that life in America is not about your ability to shop at Mickey Dee's and Walmart, and is instead about eternal vigilance you will see that taking the steps needed to feel confident carrying and using a firearm should be your first concern so that you children and theirs can live in a free country too.
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
I do not need the government to do anything other than protect me from Foreign threats (like china, N. Korea and Extremist Islamic sects). I can handle the rest.
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
The Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Thats what gives me the right to own it anonymously!!!!
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
Your sig states that "I don't get it" is not an argument. Yet you seem to consistently use that argument yourself.
Your simple statement that the forth amendment does not mean I can own something without the government knowledge does not make it true. Thats a process known as rationalization. The courts have ruled that in the absence of credible and specific threats, or evidence that the criteria for defamation have been met, the man's anonymity should be protected.
So come on what other fabulous legal arguments do you have?
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:3, Informative)
As the government weapons increase then the citizens would also need to increase their firepower, for protection from the government.
btw I do not own a gun and I am not a member of NRA.
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
I also think this is the most likely explanation for the Founder's intent. I believe that the 2nd Amendment exists as a type of "right to revolution", so that the means would always exist to remove an abusive government. This makes the 2nd Amendment one of the most important parts of the Bill of Rights, since it protects all the other rights.
This "database" idea will have no effect on crime prevention or enforcement and will end up just being a means for the government to track who the honest gun owners are (since the dishonest ones will certainly not have their weapons in this database).
genocide.....link (Score:2)
See this for a decent summary:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,658
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
The Second Amendment gives me the right to own a firearm. The Forth Amendment gives me the right to own it anonymously. The Ninth protects me from the government over stepping their bounds on such and issue. To Quote Maddison:
``My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of
rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be
included in the enumeration. . . . I have not viewed it in an important
light--1. because I conceive that in a certain degree . . . the rights
in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are
granted. 2. because there is great reason to fear that a positive
declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained
in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in
particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much
more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power.'' 5 Writings
of James Madison, 271-72 (G. Hunt ed. 1904).
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:3, Informative)
Once someone has bought a gun off of the street, it is as good as unregistered; and it goes a little something like this:
Now, how many times has that gun changed hands since it was last tracked? Even if the original criminal was caught, who knows where the crime weapon ended up.
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
I own quite a few guns, including "Evil Handguns", "A Nasty Assault Rifle", and of course a competitive rifle that would certainly pass for "An ungodly Sniper Rifle". Now it's quite unusual for me to carry them all at the same time. I would most likely be arrested for inciting a public panic! So even though I almost always have one on me I rarely carry more than two at a time. So I leave them at home. Where a break-in is possible. Now I certainly would not recommend to anyone to break in when I am there for reasons that should be obvious. Now I keep my firearms in a locked closet with a steel door and cinderblock walls on the other three sides. But not all the folks in the country have such a place. And so when a heroin addict breaks in and ransacks the house for items to pawn off for his next score (which happened to my cousin) things like firearms are exactly what they are looking for (and in fact they took the small safe that my cousin's weapon was in, luckily they did not get into it before the cops caught up to him).
But then I suppose you were just being a smart ass!
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
If the best argument your have is you little underthought one line zingers, you've got a lot to learn about how the world works. But please keep them coming it keeps me on my toes.
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
"So you sold your gun at a gun show two years ago to a guy...."
"... without making sure that the database was updated to the new owner. That means you are either too dumb to own a gun or are knowingly selling guns to criminals."
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
Only because the smart ones get called politicians.
The avowed purpose is not the real purpose (Score:2)
If you are trying to decide if the same gun was used in a number of similar crimes, such fuzziness is okay because the chances of having an accidental match are small. But if you start comparing against the entire population of guns in a particular caliber, you've got a problem.
No, the avowed purpose doesn't pass the smell test (except to cranks like Charles Schumer, who never saw a gun-confiscation law he didn't like). Instead, consider that this law wouldn't work without a comprehensive registry of guns and their owners. This would make it trivial to confiscate (a la NYC) everyone's guns, or just throw the protesters in jail for having failed to register their sale (or report their loss/theft to the appropriate authorities). Think it can't happen? It has already happened, in the USA, in several places.
No, there was no effect on crime. So-called "assault weapons" or "sniper guns" are used in a vanishingly small fraction of crimes. How many people died in traffic accidents in the Washington DC metro area during the last two weeks? How many people died in falls? As a public-health problem or a public-policy problem, this isn't worthy of any action; it is purely a police matter. That won't stop some demagogues from claiming that their law is EVEN BETTER THAN SNAKE OIL!, nor will it prevent a huge pile of idiots from voting for said pol on that basis. (When the voters start throwing out such pols for insulting their intelligence, we might have a sane and sensible government after a few elections. I give this about a snowball's chance in hell.)
Re:The avowed purpose is not the real purpose (Score:2)
Spoken like somebody who doesn't live in the area. Or any area where random gun violence is a problem.
The effects on the people in the DC are substantial, wide-ranging, and will be long-lasting. People are not robots. This will affect decisions to visit DC, to work in DC, and to move companies to DC. It will change how people feel about their neighbors and their neighborhoods. A quick comparison of, say, various African or South American nations will show that how safe people feel has a very large effect on the economy and on society.
That's not to say whether fingerprinting guns is a good idea; I wouldn't know. But pretending that this is just a police matter is sticking your head in the sand.
The rational person doesn't jump at shadows (Score:2)
I'm smart enough to realize that the chances of dying from a shooter such as this are very small. If I lived in the DC area, I'd exercise more than regular caution until he's caught, but other than that I wouldn't do anything; other factors, including some which are much more within my control, determine the vast majority of my odds of dying in the next week. Once the shooter is out of commission (and he's going to get caught), the added risk goes back to zero. The only reason to make a big policy flap about it is political posturing, because policy cannot affect the problem. Heck, the shooter may have bought the gun from a thief, and all the ballistic fingerprinting in the world wouldn't make it any easier to find him. What then, will you say "Oops, the premise behind this law is a mistake and this will only add to our public expenditures without improving safety, so let's forget the idea"? C'mon, be honest here: would you, or wouldn't you?
Re:The rational person doesn't jump at shadows (Score:2)
Possibly true, for you. (Although until you're living under those conditions, you can't be sure, can you?) Certainly untrue for the vast majority of humanity. It would seem that the odds of getting offed by DC's random shooter are higher than the lottery, and look how many people play that.
Saying, "If everybody were rational..." is an interesting hypothetical, but it will remain a hypothetical.
The only reason to make a big policy flap about it is political posturing, because policy cannot affect the problem.
Wow! You not only know what the problem with the person doing this and the social context that surrounds him, but have a general theory of sociology that allows you to make proofs! Really, you should share it with us.
Heck, the shooter may have bought the gun from a thief, and all the ballistic fingerprinting in the world wouldn't make it any easier to find him. What then, will you say "Oops, the premise behind this law is a mistake and this will only add to our public expenditures without improving safety, so let's forget the idea"? C'mon, be honest here: would you, or wouldn't you?
I haven't yet expressed an opinion yet either way on the law. I don't know enough yet to say either way. It depends on the cost/benefit tradeoffs.
As a general rule of thumb, I favor registration of dangerous things, including bombs, guns, cars, and toxic and polluting chemicals, and people who make dangerous things. I also generally favor licensing of people who use dangerous things, including all of the above, and including the recreational drugs that are currently illegal.
But I don't feel that either registration or licensing need be done by the government. I would love to try an experiment where we just require that a gun be registered somewhere, and to allow the NRA to operate a registry and perform licensing of gun owners.
But turn it around. If this case (or another one) would have turned out so that lives were saved by ballistic fingerprinting, would you then favor the law?
Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... (Score:2)
This was just from a quick google search. Do you have any refs for the 100's to 1000's of arrests?
Barrels (Score:3, Informative)
Phil
Re:Barrels (Score:2)
couple issues (Score:5, Insightful)
I imagine it'd be possible to change the barrel's fingerprint by scouring the inside of the barrel (say with steel wool). The barrel could also be swapped out completely...
why fingerprinting doesn't work (Score:5, Insightful)
Fingerprinting the marks on the brass cartridges is even worse; not only can that be changed, but if you shoot your gun at a public range, anyone could grab a case you've left behind and frame you with it, taking attention away from themselves.
I think it's New Jersey that's instituted a program for fingerprinting the cartridge cases; they've spent a godawful amount of money on the program, and the end result has been no useful information towards making arrests.
Fingerprinting the bullets?!?!? (Score:2)
Re:Fingerprinting the bullets?!?!? (Score:2)
Re:Fingerprinting the bullets?!?!? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:why fingerprinting doesn't work (Score:2)
But there are problems with your suggestion; the temperature and pressure present inside a cartridge case when it fires is much higher than in most explosive detonations, and making a tag that can survive is problematic. Designing a tag to be added to a bullet that will survive travel through the barrel and impact with the target is also a problem.
There's also a problem with expense. Raising the cost per round may not affect people who barely touch their gun, or who only use it for hunting, but for people who try to keep proficient and use up a lot of ammo in target practice, it could become prohibitively costly. This is especially true with law enforcement, and if you exempted them from using marked rounds, you'd have a huge potential untraceable supply and problems controlling its distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:why fingerprinting doesn't work (Score:2)
Explosives fingerprinting doesn't work (Score:2)
Good thing Congress listened to reason that time; the taggants would have really made it hell for black-powder shooters, not to mention the absurd expense of marking and tracking every batch of Pyrodex. I hope Congress is still able to listen to reason.
A note about collectors (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A note about collectors (Score:2)
Civil War revolvers - too fragile (Score:2, Interesting)
1. I don't have any bullet for this antique anymore
2. The revolver barrel just MIGHT explode this time (and reduce the value by $12000)
3. They gotta pry it from my cold dead hand!
MD & NY already have em.... (Score:3, Informative)
Rob Andrews of NJ has proposed a national database of all manufactured guns. It's come up before, and NRA lobbyists have always been successful in knocking it down.
Two issues already brought up by other posters: Yes, criminals will still get guns illegally. Such a system obviously won't protect against that, but it'll root out who's selling guns illegally. And yes, ballistics change over time the more a gun gets used. Modern guns, however, take thousands of rounds before a difference is noticeable, making this argument negligible.
As for technical issues, this looks like a problem similar to the DoJ's Fingerprint database. Basically, this DB, when given a print to search for, returns several possible matches, as perfect matching isn't possible. An investigator then takes those matches and performs a hand check of each to determine if the print he has has been seen before. This means the DoJ's agencies have to keep prints on hard-copy records in filing cabinets.
The major difference is that the DoJ DB doesnt contain every individual's fingerprint, while the proposed ballistics DB would contain the fingerprint of every manufactured gun made after the system goes live. If ballistics are non-deterministic like the DoJ fingerprints, then that means every used round would have to be physically kept somewhere, and it would quickly add up to a lot of space.
Best thing to do is to find out how MD and NY have their systems working.
Re:MD & NY already have em.... (Score:2)
Or one little piece of steel wool...
Replacement Barrels (Score:4, Interesting)
However, you can readily buy replacement barrels [aa-ok.com] for most rifles anyway. So you could handily buy a weapon and register it, and then swap out the barrel, use the weapon in a crime, and then change it back. Obviously this would take planning and a minor amount of skill (it's really not hard to take apart assault rifles -- remember, they are designed to be taken apart and cleaned in the field by unsophisticated soldiers). The D.C. killer is obviously skilled enough to accomplish this.
Bullet fingerprinting is still an idea that does have its merits, but don't let anyone fool you that such laws would be in any way helpful in catching the current D.C. area serial killer.
What about building you own (Score:5, Insightful)
Once again this is a knee-jerk reaction. This person or persons has commited a crime, and when caught will be punished for it. Thinking that any law would have prevented this is illogical and flat out wrong. You can make anything a crime but that doesn't mean its going to stop anyone from doing it. What it does is create a police state where everyone is a criminal and as such can be controlled.
The problem (Score:3, Insightful)
In order to get a conviction you must make the following links:
1) bullet to gun
2) gun to perpatrator
The hard part is #2. The gun's rightful owner is generally not the perp. (You know that, right?). Even if you could comprehensively backpopulate all 50 million existing guns to their fingerprint, you would acheive nothing.
For example, after the first shooting we have the fingerprint of this gun. We know that the following shootings were done by the same gun. We do not have an arrest. WHY? Because it is step 2 that is hard.
Of course, attempts to make a database of existing guns will fail utterly. I think the 30 million NRA members will probably interpret your request for a bullet sample a little differently that you.
Re:The problem (Score:2)
Yes, but you've trimmed your search tree down from 50 million gun owners to a likely individual in the chain of possession of that gun. Chances are that the owner knows the perp or has at least some notion regarding the next possessor of the gun (the six degrees of separation between owner and perp
Database of Serial #'s already exists (Score:2)
What everyone fails to realize is that a registry already exists for gun serial numbers. Yes some criminals go to great lengths to file off the serial number, but they are still used to help solve crimes - and possessing a gun with a filed off serial number was itself made a crime in many juridictioins - the same could be done for altering the gun barrel.
Also, consider that fingerprints of criminals has been a forensic tool for over a century now, yet most criminals don't think to put on gloves or wear masks over their faces when they commit crimes. I think the ability of criminals to alter barrels is therefore a smokescreen since the criminals rarely fail to take other trivial steps to conceal their identities.
Unfortunately, the current serial number only database is only useable in those situations where a gun is discarded and not in cases like the current DC sniper. But because of serial numbers there is already a national registry and the NRA need not get its panties in a bunch about creating a new way to infringe on their second amendment rights. Ballistic fingerprints could easily be added to the existing serial number registry - at least for new guns and any gun that is legally resold.
I assume that law abiding gun owners aren't filing the serial numbers off their guns (which as I noted is itself crime in many places), and that if a gun is stolen any responsible gun owner (which the NRA claims is the vast majority of them) is going to immediately report the theft it to the police (since failure to report a crime is itself a crime).
It's pointless. (Score:2)
If that's the case, it's pointless because of the 200 million or so guns already privately owned that won't be included in the database.
It's just a big waste of money.
Re:It's pointless. (Score:2)
I guess the same would apply to gun serial number databases, right?
Oh, but wait! Those already exist. And they somehow help solve some crimes. By your logic, that must be because they created the database when they first started stamping serial numbers on guns, yes?
What would you say if... (Score:2, Insightful)
Only hurts the good guys (Score:2)
As stated in other responses, the main problem is that the fingerprint is likely to change over the course of the gun's life. Even supposing someone can come up with a better model for fingerprinting that can account for this, the next problem is that if fingerprinting were made to work, criminals would get their barrels custom made by a freind who's a gunsmith. They wouldn't be in the database.
Re:Only hurts the good guys (Score:2)
It seems like a valid argument, but I believe statistics show that a high percentage of gun violence is opportunistic and spontaneous, not involving planning ahead or careful gun selection. Given that you can't eliminate gun violence altogether even with strict gun laws (look at Europe, which still has a fair amount of shootings), the next best goal should be to minimize casualties. Therefore arguments that method X or method Y won't completely eliminate shooting deaths shouldn't bear as much weight as they do. Any measures that could potentially cut annual shooting deaths in say half should be seriously considered.
Re:Only hurts the good guys (Score:2)
And the only measure that has repeatibly shown these results is the passing of concealed carry laws. See The NCPA [ncpa.org].
Re:Only hurts the good guys (Score:2)
Never heard of it, but went to the site and read up on them. All I have to say is that I value very little the opinion of any organization that considers Thatcher a pioneer of social change and justice. It's pretty clear which side of the political spectrum the NCPA is on, and it ain't mine.
Re:Only hurts the good guys (Score:2)
Basing your beliefs on a party line with no thought to how the world really works is a whole nother point that I would hazzard a guess is against what the left consistently tries to point out is their belief of tolerance and understanding of other peoples views. Which is to say that if you have an opposing study please point it out.
You don't have to value their opinion but I do believe that laws should be enacted that are based on solid facts and not on feelings and opinions (which is what I pointed out). Please see my other post for more studies that are not related to NCPA such as the DOJ, The FBI, and The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law: Here [slashdot.org].
Re:Only hurts the good guys (Score:2)
Hardly. Statistics exist in order to be manipulated, and you have to weigh more than just one source of numbers to judge their worth. In this case, gun control IS a highly political topic, so political spectrum matters very much. That does not mean that unbiased figures are impossible to obtain, so I will definitely look up the other sources that you cited.
Re:Only hurts the good guys (Score:2)
If you remove the political spectrum issue and look at the facts the answer is clear. The issue comes down to whether you can accept these two facts: That people die, and that there are people who are truly evil in this world. Everyday they are killed in the most senseless ways, some in accidents and some purposefully by people with no remorse for what they have done to cause others deaths. You sound as if you are a highly moral person with a great respect for life. Why else would you want to remove guns from society, because they are used to kill people? But once you except the two facts above you will see that defending life is what really matters. To live in a highly moral and educated society you must be willing to stand in the way of those that wish to take that from you, defending it with your life so that others may enjoy those freedoms. And I don't know about you but when my life is on the line, I wish to have the absolute best tools to defend it with. I am not a martyr so therefore I will stand before all those who threaten my family, my country and my freedom and I will do it armed to the teeth.
Re:Only hurts the good guys (Score:2)
Didn't take it as such. We're just having a discourse.
> Why else do you want to remove guns from society
I never claimed such a thing. In fact I believe I said that I'm not at all against regulated gun ownership. I'm just exasperated at the idiocy of not being allowed to drive a car without learning how to use it, or not being able to string electrical wiring throughout my house without being certified, yet being able to go out and buy highly lethal weapons like candy.
I don't buy the self-defense argument for a moment. Every single guy (by far mostly guys!) that I know that's into guns (and by golly here in the South that's just about everyone) does it for the thrill and machismo and manliness of it. A bit of that little-boy hero day dreaming of rescuing the damsel in distress. I mean just look at the gleaming in your own eyes when you start talking guns with other guys (I've checked a few of your posts)--you love THE GUNS THEMSELVES, not (just, or so much) their "freedom-preserving" qualities. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but quit using the high moral ground as an excuse for your fetish.
> I will stand before all those who threaten my family, my country
> and my freedom and I will do it armed to the teeth.
I'm more concerned what you'll do armed to the teeth while under the influence of a bit of bubbly. I assume you'd still take your concealed weapon along with you--after all, those dark alleys around pubs and bars can be pretty treacherous at night, what better place to take advantage of the empowering qualities of the gun? Say I might have accidentally put a little dent in your car with my car door and we're getting into a little argument over it. Do I have to count on your ability to hold your liquor to not cross a threshold where you're going to put an end to my insolence with that gun in your jacket? I'm afraid there's even more research showing that even good people with a gun in their hands are more likely to use it. It was pretty frightening to read the results of some research to find out how many people would be willing to press a button that would extinguish a human life somewhere on earth if there were no consequence attached to it and no-one would ever find out. How much more entitled would one feel to take a human life in the name of self-defence?
Re:Only hurts the good guys (Score:2)
I'm sure that a high percentage is spontaneous and opportunistic, but still I believe that those most likely to commit a gun crime and get away with it won't bein the database to begin with. If you're likely to ever have your gun tracked, you probably kinda have an idea you're that type of person, and probably are likely to buy something that doesn't get recorded. My point is that you shouldn't restrict privacy or rights unless you can really well prove that there's a good reason, and that's not the case here.
Anyways, gun deaths will always occur, and there's no silver bullet for tracking down the perps. Gun control has never proven effective and lowering the number of shootings or increasing anyone's safety. As pointed out in another reply (and I've read this many times from many sources, none of which was Thatcher) concealed carry laws have been proven to reduce violent crime. Another corollary thought is this: Gun control advocates (who think that for the most part Police should be the ones with guns protecting us, rather than us having guns and protecting ourselves) fail to realize that police are statistically a very very poor defense against armed assailants. Their primary role is to show up after the fact, make a report, and investigate the crime - there's not enough of them to be there when it happens. If you want actual protection from armed assailants, you have to arm yourself, no two ways about it.
That all being said, another good alternative to widespread concealed carry laws and private gun ownership would be to dump money into the further development and commercialization (for the public's use) of new high-tech non-lethal defense mechanisms. A really good example that comes is the Tetanizing Beam Weapon (http://www.hsvt.org/main.html). These guys page has been around forever and I've yet to hear of the product in use, so perhaps it's all smoke. But it sounds scientifcally sound and possible, and it's a nonlethal alternative to a gun.
Re:Only hurts the good guys (Score:2)
I'm afraid I can't take you at your word. So far most of the organizations that have reached this conclusion had a definite pro-gun or pro-laissez-faire agenda. There are even more studies concluding that the likelyhood of injury and death is considerably higher when victims also have guns, since that can lead to panic or one-upmanship in the perpetrator (amongst many other reasons, such as the victim owning the gun without being trained in its use).
However, you need to make a distinction between proponents of gun abolishment and those of gun control. I don't believe that guns should be abolished, but just about any other potentially harmful product is regulated in some way--including cars, chemicals, medications etc.--so I don't see why guns should be an exception. Tracking guns is not the same as abolishing them, so let's not pretend it is.
A study of Europe over the last twenty or thirty years can be very enlightening. Most western European countries have had strict gun control for a long time, and (especially illegal) gun ownership in the population was much lower than in the US. Coincidentally shooting deaths in Europe overall were also about two orders of magnitude lower than in the US, despite an overall larger population. This changed quite dramatically after the Iron Curtain came down and the black market was flooded with Eastern Block military weapons. Illegal gun ownership increased dramatically, and shooting deaths in the 90s also increased considerably over the preceding decades. This would lead one to conclude that shooting deaths are indeed related to the density of guns in the population. Reducing this density by any (moral and ethical) means should also decrease the number of deaths.
Only proves your opponent's point (Score:2)
Something you might want to research is the historical rates of violence vs. the relative novelty of gun-control laws. ISTR that Britain's murder rate was an even smaller fraction of the USA's in the 19th century, and that was when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was writing about Sherlock Holmes carrying a pistol whenever it suited him (not just unregistered weapons, but legal unrestricted concealed carry!). Attributing the historical crime statistics in those states to their present-day gun-control laws puts the effect before the cause.
Re:Only proves your opponent's point (Score:2)
You completely missed my point that it wasn't the gun control laws themselves that kept gun violence low, but rather the low numbers of guns in the population. So whatever limits these numbers should help lower gun violence. It's not enough to have gun control laws, you need effective ways of sealing off all avenues of clandestine weapons into the population. During the Cold War the commies did that very effectively at their expense for us, but nowadays it's a lot trickier.
Re:Only proves your opponent's point (Score:2)
You're going to have to believe the concealed carry statistics, they're very obvious. Florida and Texas are great examples where violent crime dropped like a rock after concealed carry was passed. You will never seal off criminals from owning guns, history proves this impossible. Lowering the total amount of guns in Europe may have reduced crime, but I would be willing to bet that the rise in crimes when the black market flooded would have been somewhat mitigated if the euro civilians had still been better armed - in other words, their tight gun control is what set them up for the crime wave.
Re:Only proves your opponent's point (Score:2)
Obvious to whom? To you, because you WANT to believe it?
Re:Only proves your opponent's point (Score:2)
So at the time (early 90's) I wrote in a letter to the editor in response to some article on Gun Control in the USA Today, which got published. My letter expressed my sincere belief that gun controls work and whatnot. I was a full-on gun control believer at the time.
After a few years abck in the good old US of course, I realized that thigns are different here. You just can't disarm the US, it will never work. Your best bet is a widely armed public, otherwise the criminals have all the power.
And you controlled for this factor HOW? (Score:2)
More to the point, the same events which led to the influx of ex-Soviet weapons into the rest of the world also led to a flood of people, including Russian Mafiosi. Poor people in general have higher crime rates than middle-class people (see the complaints of the French about e.g. Algerian immigrants bringing crime to the places where they settle). You've latched onto one factor as the cause, and the entire argument is fatally flawed.
Uh, yeah. Do you really think that if we get rid of the GUN violence everything will be peachy-keen? Stop assuming that violence with knives, clubs or fists is harmless to its victims. The rate of violent crime in Britain is very high, with a rate of "hot" burglaries which ISTR is higher than the USA's total burglary rate. People get attacked and sometimes killed in such crimes, and it is a moral outrage to demand that they be disarmed so that the criminals won't become "gun violence statistics".Re:And you controlled for this factor HOW? (Score:2)
Well, that gets into the social engineering aspect of crime, which really has nothing to do with gun control. I fully agree with the socio-economic approach to crime fighting, but you also will have the hardest time changing society that way. During the second half of last century western Europe was arguably a more socially and economically just environment, that probably more than anything else was the cause for low crime. But that balance is shifting now towards more US-modelled social darwinist economies with growing economic disparities. That is probably also one of the reasons we see an increase in violence. But like I said, you will find it pretty hard to change society that way, so you have to look for next-best alternatives.
More like DNS, less like fingerprints (Score:3, Interesting)
Additionally, did anyone notice something odd about the latest killing? The police said that they linked the killing at the home depot to the other string using ballistic evidence, but they said the killer may have used a different rifle? Maybe the media is oversimplifying here, but how can you link a killing to a string of other killings ballistically if it's a different gun?
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (Score:3, Informative)
Where does the Bad come in? Well, from personal experience, I bought a used hand gun from A&P arms in Virgina years ago. Recently, I had a phone call from a Virginia Beach police officer investigating a robbery and looking for a gun -- the federal registry said that I had the gun (they only had a partial serial, but insisted I was the only gun) and I had not lived in Virgina for over 5 years. Luckily, I was able to provide him the name of the dealer I sold the gun to. Also, luckily, he was a polite individual and knew that the system was giving him information that could not be true, but he had to follow the lead as my serial number was a partial match. If this system is implemented, then it should be used to check used weapons when they are sold/changed ownership. There are many ads in trade papers for weapons, and I would not be against a requirement that a ballistics check be made before I purchased it. This is akin to a background check on potential buyers of guns, and since all a criminal has to do, is pick up the local classifeds/trade magazine -- there is no US law that states that an individual has to perform a background check on someone prior to selling them a personal weapon.
The Ugly? Well, if you check out many guns, they now come with multiple caliber barrels for the same frame. Buy a 9mm over the counter, register it, and have it entered into the ballistic database. Go to a gun show, purchase a
Where this database will come in handy, is all the firearms in police impound. There are numerous weapons that never make it to melt down, and those criminals (and maybe the officer) that has it may not consider changing the identifying items..barrel and firing pin.
Criminals will always have the means to obtain a gun, and as long as I have the right to carry mine, I'm not worried.
The best defense against a tyrranical governement, is a well armed populace.
Re:The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (Score:2)
> to keep a record of the individual purchasing the kit
Good points, but this detail could be easily fixed legally. Why not require conversion kits to undergo the same ballistics registration? Seems like a no-brainer.
Re:The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (Score:2)
The BATF requires a $200 stamp tax to purchase a class 3 "machine gun". There is nothing stopping you as a private individual from purchasing one. You simple must pay the stamp tax and notify local law enforcement (ussually the county sherif). As for shooting them check out Knob Creek Range [machinegunshoot.com]. They have a machine gun shoot twice a year, one just this past weekend which I attended. This is one of many such shoots and you can purchase many makes and models of machine guns there.
Re:The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (Score:2)
Re:The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (Score:2)
When you buy a replacement barrel, you don't necessarly by it from the original mfg - in fact, if you want a really GOOD barrel, I can tell you that it doesn't - it probably comes from one of a half dozen or so companies that specialize in barrels (there are more than that, but I did say good). The barrels come unchambered, and maybe even uncontoured - thats where the gunsmith comes in.
Anyway, when you buy your barrel blank, you can specify what twist you want, and each maker might use a different land/grove pattern. For instance, in a
Frangible Ammo (Score:5, Interesting)
Watch CSI? (Score:2)
While CSI is fiction, the trick made sense to me.
Some guy who owned a chain of grocery stores and happened to be a gun afficionado (Could pack his own cartridges with powder/a bullet) made the bullets out of meat instead of lead. So by the time the body was discovered, the ballistics evidence had melted.
The bullet won't be as strong/fly as well as a lead one, you say? Doesn't matter at close range - Even blanks pointed at the head can kill you when point-blank.
Making the bullet out of ice could probably be done too.
Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens (Score:2)
You cant make laws that require criminals to identify themselves and expect them to work. Criminals don't obey the laws. That's why they are criminals.
Regisration is a step to tyranny (Score:2)
-Peter
Solve Issues (Score:2)
Technical issues could be solved fairly easily, I think. Make it convenient by requiring a testfire of each weapon prior to sale, at the factory, into the nearest dork at the gunshow, whatever, as long as you recover the slug and send it in.
My proposal for solving the political issues is to require all access to the database to be done through an elected citizens review board comprised not only of law enforcement officials, but also comprised of gun owners, NRA members, whatever, who will have the responsibility to ensure that government invasions of privacy, etc. do not get out of hand.
One of the biggest problems with gun ownership is the same as the biggest problem with parenting. The qualifications to become either one are far, far below what they should be considering the corresponding great responsibility.
Smooth Bore Weapons (Score:2)
I would suggest most people go and watch "Bowling for Columbine" It gives a very clear picture of the question. It's not guns it's people it's always dumb schmucks like you and me.
America has a number of problems at the moment the least of which is guns. A corrupt administration, a corrupt legislature for starters. When Bush strolls into Iraq do not expect things to get any better.
As a side point has any gun legislature in the last 100 years made the citizens safer or has it made the politicians safer?
Great idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
And while we are it, for the noble cause of solving crime, why don't we fingerprint not only guns, but also fingers/hands of every person in the country. After all, criminals may leave fingerprints at crime scenes and that will allow us to easily identify and locate those criminals. And let's not forget about collecting the DNA information too. That would be wonderful for solving all those rapes and whatnot.
So, all you gun control nuts - see anything wrong with this picture?
It's Already Been Done! (Score:2)
Anti- 'Everyone should have a Gun arguement' (Score:2)
Using the same logic, if everyone had a knife no one would be stabbed. Ok, look in everyone's kitchen. I bet everyone has a potentially deadly knife of some type (basically anything sharp.) Now, how many people were stabbed in domestic disputes last year.
Look at your hands, look at your feet. Most people have two of each. Now, does that mean that since almost everyone has hands and feet that no one was strangled, kicked, or beaten to death or near it last year?
Everyone in War has a gun or some type of weapon, does that mean that no one will be killed? So think, if more people had guns, does that mean that there would be less problems?
No
The problems will occur with or without the guns, but the guns sure make it easier. Think if the Sniper had to get out of his car and kick each of his victims to death. I don't feel that he would be as sucessful.
Now back to topic, I feel that it would be possible to 'register' the balistics data on all guns. We currently require that all guns are registered (which obviously doesn't happen). But we could require everyone to register the data on their gun, with stiff penalties for being caught with an unregistered gun. And if someone's gun was 'stolen' and someone was shot with it, well if you didn't report your gun stolen (and the court could show that you knew it was stolen), then you should be in deep shit too. People seriously need to keep their weapons locked up with no access to other people's hands. Biometric locking systems or even smartcard systems are cheap enough now.
Re:RF Tagged Guns (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course you'd step right into a right to privacy issue...(see Amendment, 5th)
Modify a firearm? (Score:4, Insightful)
Any half wit backwoods gunsmith can rebore a barrel and still have a reasonably accurate gun. The issue is we aren't dealing with high end equipment, guns have been around for hundreds upon hud reds of years and the tech to build and maintain them is relatively low. So anything that relies on a physical aspect of the firearm can be modified, and hence the system circumvented, by ANYONE with a small machine shop (ie tools in their garage).
Foxfire books vol 8: (Score:2)
You basically need a stick with a hard metal cutting bit on the end. Not kidding, look at the book. THats how the rifiling is done in there.
Re:RF Tagged Guns (Score:2)
Re:RF Tagged Guns (Score:2)
I don't think that middle party members or the proles are allowed to have guns. At least there's no mention of it.
Just considering a firearm is thoughtcrime.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ignorance is YOUR problem (Score:2)
If you don't think there ever will be in the EU... you really ought to read some history before posting on public policy issues... start with 1939-1944.
Democracy seems like a secure, settled thing to you. The issue as to whether even the USA will remain a free country even with private access to firearms is decidedly open. As to whether any country can remain democratic forever without deadly force in the hands of its citizens, you don't know the answer and neither do I.
You EU citizens made the decision to trade security for freedom by placing a monopoly of firearms in the hands of your governments, in the hopes of getting safer streets.
Perhaps the risk/benefit tradeoff is worth it. in the EU. Perhaps the French, given free access to handguns, would exterminate each other to the last man, world, and child. Perhaps the Englishman, given access to firearms, would immediately make the Thames run red with blood. Perhaps the Italians could turn their tourists and each other into bullet-ridden corpses and only keeping them unarmed has prevented this.
On the other hand, the Swiss people are armed on a scale which would scare the hell out of even the average American if he knew about it. People keep their government-issued automatic weapons at home with ammunition, and they are encouraged to buy their own ammo so they can practice shooting on their own time and funds. (check the Swiss Embassy site for what they've got to say about it... I've seen several different versions of what the Swiss are and aren't armed with)
Switzerland is an awfully quiet, peaceful place and it isn't because they all killed each other with their assault weapons.
Studies have demonstrated that communities in the USA that have made it possible for citizens to carry handguns via freely issued permits are safer than the places with strict gun control laws.
I'm not going to tell a resident of the EU that you should immediately abandon your gun control laws. Though ... it would be an interesting experiment that I would very much like to see from a safe distance to allow concealed carry (handgun permits) in one EU nation. Where do you live?