BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: DougR
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 12:05 AM

Because, McGrath, I suspect that the majority of the members of the NRA are perfectly happy with the organization the way it is.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: NicoleC
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 10:05 PM

I don't know McGrath. I do think that any legislation to require safety training will probably have to have the backing of the NRA pass. If the NRA had a better record on being sensible about their guns, I'd suggest them as the best folks to design a safety program. But I think they'd work hard to make it a rubber stamp. (*IF* this ever came to pass. Which I doubt it will.) There are numerous hunt clubs and skeet-shooting clubs that could probably do a better job.

Like many organizations, I think the NRA is mostly made up of relatively responsible and reasonable people. MANY law enforcement officers are members; few criminals are. Like trail mix, the nuts float to the top, and the political use of much of the membership dues revenue would be appalling to many of those same members. Foxhole mentality -- *everyone else* wants to take your gun away, and only the NRA stands up to them...

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 09:42 PM

Good question and great idea, McGrath...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 09:36 PM

I'm sure there are a lot of gunowners who are quite sensible sane and responsible people who deserve to have an organisation represent them that is also sensible sane and responsible, and wants proper gun controls and tests as rigorous as driving tests and all that knd of stuff.

I mentioned our motoring orgganisations here, the AA and the RAC, and though they have hangups about lowering speed limits, they do accept that there should be speed limits, and driving tests, and you don't find them being anti-seat belt and so forth.

So why don't the responsible gun-owners in the USA take over the NRA or set up something better?

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 09:27 PM

Well, now Arne and Don, seems like "reasonable* arguments for some *reasonable * changes in the manner in which guns are distributed to the populace are in most forums SHOUTED (excuse me) down. The lie told loud enough and often enough by folks mean enough by virtue of the number of guns they own *shouldn't* win over *reasonable* people with *reasonable* ideas.

Yeah, so what's wrong with knowing where the guns are? Hey, if you are a law abiding gun owner, what's the *big* fear. I would think that the governemnt would like to have guns in the hands of as many *law abiding* and *responsible* citizens as possible. Where I live in this holler in Wes Ginny, we don't have police. We also don't have crime. Why? We have a lot of responsible gun owners.

Lastly, one would think that the NRA would get with the program. They *could* be right in the middle of bringing a greater level of gun safety to the US thru legislation that wouyld keep guns out of the hands of nutballs plus thru gun safety programs. Unfortunatley, most parents won't send their kids to the NRA for gun safety courses because the NRA has taken a position that is so paranoid and extreme.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 08:23 PM

About thirty-five years ago I did a lot of target shooting (and outdoor plinking) with a few friends, all of whom were heavily into gun safety, fortunately. We were all NRA members. There is a large faction of NRA members who are convinced that someday our government will turn tyrannical and we'll all have to unlimber our deer rifles and target pistols and take the government back. Without actually speculating on the likelihood of that actually happening, that's why the more hard-charging NRA members (which includes the offficers of the organization) are so adamant about objecting to anything vaguely resembling a law having to do with firearms. A bit of incipient paranoia, perhaps.

When I learned to drive, I took a two week course offered by the Automobile Club of America, after which I was thoroughly checked out by one of their instructors. Then I had to take a drivers' test. Then I got my license to drive. When I bought my first gun, I walked into Central Gun Exchange in downtown Seattle and told the man what I wanted. He checked my ID, made a phone call ("no wants or warrants"), and gave me the gun. I wrote him a check and that was that. He didn't know if I even knew which end the bullet came out of.

Sumpin's screwed up somewhere.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 08:22 PM

What's a "typewriter"?

Seriously:
As for altering the fingerprint, I suggested a while ago
that a coded pattern be engraved on the lands that would
carry a digital ID. With code redundancy and error checking,
it is possible that clumsier attempts to alter it or
even the degradation from normal wear and tear might
not destroy enough of the pattern to make it unreadable.

For such weapons as Saturday Night Specials, they're
probably used seldom enough, and are cheap enough to
not make it worth the bother of altering them.

And the more sophisticated attempts might not be able
to forge a different code, so at least the tamper would
be evident. But most criminals wouldn't even bother;
they're not always people of means or ability, and often
the crime is a crime of passion. In such cases, every
little bit would help. It's not necessary for something
to be 100% foolproof in order to be useful.

I think it's a good idea, but to be effective, we'd need
better records of legal gun transactions as well, and _this_
is what the nunguts are really upset about; they don't
want the gummint knowing who has what guns, for some
reason. Reasonable people don't mind having VINs on
vehicles to identify them, registering their vehicles,
and informing the gummint about sales, and this _obviously_
helps in tracking stolen vehicles, and in finding out
who might have used a vehicle spotted in a crime. You'd
think the same would be true of gun owners, but the nunguts
have this idea that the gummint is someday going to come and
take them away, and that then they'll have no defence against
the gummint. . . .

Cheers,

                               -- Arne Langsetmo

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 05:17 PM

I heard on NPR today that the Bush administration is re-evaluating their position on the isssue. Hey, it's not like I'm expecting a reversal, but at least, the reconsideration process, is a tiny first step and gives a tad more credibility to an issue that the NRA *expects* Bush to walk their line on.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 08:10 PM

"Why punish the millions of law abiding citizens?"

What possible punishment could it be to a law abiding citizen to have a record of the ballistic characteristics of their guns in the hands of the authorities? It could even help in restoring a gun to the owner if it had been stolen.

I suppose, if the gun had been stolen and was used in a crime, and the owner hadn't bothered to report it, the owner might have a problem - but I would be extremely suspicious of anyone who failed to report a stolen gun. In fact I would rather assume that that is some kind of offence already. A rather serious offence. If a stolen gun were used in a crime the owner who hadn't reported it missing wpou;d effectively be some kind of accessory before the fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 07:52 PM

With statistics you might be able to show that there were relatively few lives saved, but "not one life"??   The margins of error would be MUCH bigger than that.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 07:37 PM

Who has advocated punishing "millions of law abiding citizens"? Curious reaction, indeed.

So there's absolutely nothing that mankind can do regarding guns to make society safer? Yeah, that's what the NRA has spent billions of PR bucks pumping into some of you folks heads but not mine, thank you.

And how would one go about proving that Canada's programs don't have any effect? There are variables. Like population increases. Like incidents of other violent crimes. Statistics can be very tricky.

Ask my college calculis teacher who can prove that 1=2.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 07:37 PM

GUEST said:

"The Canadian Governmenthas so far spent 300 million trying to register existing firearms. Not one life has been saved by this."

How could you possibly know that? It just MIGHT be true, maybe, but how could one test it? One really should not go around making bland, blanket assertions that can't be tested.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: JedMarum
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 06:23 PM

It is very difficult to alter one's own finger prints - in fact, virtually impossible. On the other hand, modifying, eliminating or counterfeiting one's ballistic fingerprinting are all simple tasks, easily accomplished. Why punish the millions of law abiding citizens? Why attack abusers of alcohol in the same manner, since they kill, mame and damage far more frequently and in much higher numbers. Why not prohibit alcohol?

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 06:22 PM

They did, but it wasnt enough money. The other problem is, many people just couldnt be bothered registering them

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 06:07 PM

Why couldn't they make the gun owners cover the cost by sticking on an appropriate licence fee that would have done that?

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 06:01 PM

The Canadian Governmenthas so far spent 300 million trying to register existing firearms. Not one life has been saved by this. 300 million spent on helth care would have saved thousands. Logic?

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 05:23 PM

I agree with John in that in the situation before us, chances are that a finger printing would probably not stop this murderer. And sure, it is a shame to use these deaths for political gain. But this is the system. Left to their own devices, Congress would not do anything to plug the holes or dare to throw and stumbling blocks at the feet of the crooks. It seems that it does take some senseless *irresponsible gun ownership* to bring about the changes that do make folks overall safer. Yeah, I would like to see trigger locks. Makes sense to sell them with the gun. And it would be nice if folks would use 'em after they got the gun home rather than throw 'em in the trash. That alone would save a lot of kid's lives.

And I'm not too sure the grease trick would work on changing the ballistic characteristics. And firing pins. Hmmmmm? Guess one could file on 'em and I would think that they could be redesigned in the sahpe of a star (or something) htat would make them tamper resistent and folks found with tampered pins could face some extra penalties.

If there is a will, then there is a way. Right now, those who profit fromthe sale of guns are running the show and lots of folks are getting killed. I think the time is right to bring a little reason and logic to the isssue.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 05:13 PM

In the same kind of context, this sounds interesting - Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 05:11 PM

"If I know how to make silencers, alter a bullet's or a shells use marks, and so on, there must be at least a million others who do also."

*sigh*...there PLENTY of 'dumb' criminal types who do NOT know how to alter gun characteristics....we have to get any edge we can, and this WOULD allow us to trace the path of many guns...at least to finding where it was sold new, which often helps.

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 04:57 PM

http://forums.maestronet.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB5&Number=163327&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=2&vc=1

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 04:54 PM

Montgomery County
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A call to ban all snipers has had little effect.
The shootings continue.

A law to buy up all white astro vans and destroy them didn't work.
The shootings continue.

A call to ban all guns met with fierce opposition.
As the shootings continue some people yelled,

"Why ban guns, nothing else worked."
If they are right it is time to surrender.

But who do we surrender to?
The shootings continue.

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 04:43 PM

I read in a paper that in Marylanmd they require that every handgun sold has a fired bullet casing deposited in some state record system. But not rifles, so it's no use in this case.

It seems a logical sort of idea, which could be applied right across the board, everywhere. And like Bobert I cannot begin to envisage how any responsible gun owner should have any objection at all. In fact I'd have imagined that they'd be the people promoting the idea in the first place. However the impression that comes across is that the gun lobby in the USA doesn't actually represent responsible gun owners. In the same way, you get motoring associations in England, such as the AA and the RAC, opposing measures that would save the lives of members.

Fingerprints aren't perfect either - you can wear gloves, and you even have people who've had their hands surgically altered. But it's caught a whole lot of people, because most crime isn't planned that well in advance, and that includes most shootings.

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 04:03 PM

Mark you, I am not an armorer or ballistics expert, but it seems to me that if there was created a database of sample projectiles from all pistols and rifles, if I were a criminal the first thing I would do when I bought/stole/was given a firearm would be to try to change the marking characteristics of the rifle bore.

Seems to me that coating a single round with a little grease with abrasive in it and firing the weapon would change the marks left on subsequent bullets passing through the barrel enough to make matching with previous samples difficult to impossible. Yes, it might tend to wear out the barrel faster, and possibly decrease the accuracy of the weapon, but especially for the cheap Saturday Night Specials, which are only useful close up anyway, are cheap to replace, and probably would be disposed of after firing in the course of a crime, it would probably be worth it.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 02:49 PM

If I know how to make silencers, alter a bullet's or a shells use marks, and so on, there must be at least a million others who do also. The FBI Magtazine is where I learned, by the way. Fairly authoritative. If the laws are passed, people will learn over night. But let's not let that stop us from catching the stupid ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: John Hardly
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 02:43 PM

sense.......gotta proof read.

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: John Hardly
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 02:40 PM

actually it would make a certain amount of common sence to not codify this technology. The sorta "catch 22" is that, the more commonplace the use of this sort of "fingerprinting", and the more common the knowledge of this possibility, the more likely the fingerprint will be tampered with before a crime.

I agree that there shouldn't be reason to resist this -- except maybe as weighing cost against effectiveness. Still, there is also no reason, other than an election and a tragic event that has the national attention, that has this (ballistic fingerprinting) being brought to the public attention.

This has been brought up to try to make a political debate out of the Beltway sniper -- and it is a complete non-sequitor. It wouldn't help now and it wouldn't help if it had been in place -- if the guy's smart enough to evade the law to this point, he'd also be smart enough to change the "ballistic fingerprint" of his weapon(s).

Doesn't stop politicians from trying to make points with it though while we're in a frenzy. Damn the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 02:37 PM

Talk of opposing, Bill. How about the "gun show" loophole?

Wacko nutball to gunshop owner: "Ahhhh, I need a gun quick but I got a record a mile long. Can ya' help me?"

Gunshop owner: " Not here. pal. But there's a gun show accross the street" (wink, wink)

Yeah, too bad when anyone talks about reasonable things that can help someone throws up the "Hey, you're not getting my gun away from me!" arguement. Like exactly who is it that is advocating taking guns away from reponsible gun owners anyway?

Yeah, that song and dance routine is getting a tad old, doncha think?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 02:15 PM

ballistic fingerprinting would HELP!!!....and with the stupid situation we have here in the USA with so many idiots having guns, we need all the help we can get!...it's that simple.

Those who oppose it are opposing ANYTHING that might interfere with them and their toys. They are opposing laws limiting the sale of assault weapons, claiming it inhibits hunters, so of course they would oppose having the BULLETS identifiable!

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 02:06 PM

Attractive as it seems at first blush, the idea of a database of "ballistic fingerprints" is not as good as might seem. With use, the characteristics of a barrel (as to the projectile markings) or the chamber (as to the shell markings) will change to some degree, making a "true match" less likely and a "near match" of less value for proof.
This is also true for typewriter-to-typewritten-sample matching, which in ideal circumstances is comparable in value to ballistics testing.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: NicoleC
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 11:50 AM

Weeeellll... I think it's safe to say that gun licensing, as it exists in America, is kind of a joke. Almost anyone can get them and almost anyone can bypass a background check. (Looks like legislation is pending and will probably pass that helps close that loophole some.)

If we can't reasonably enforce the licensing and ownership issues, the next logical step seems to be the weapons themselves. Trigger locks, fingerprinting and so forth. If we are going to reduce gun-related deaths in this country, we need to think more than just about die-hard criminal activity. We need to prevent kids from blowing their friends away while they play with Mommy's gun, and we need to think of ways to help prevent Daddy from getting upset and shooting Mommy in a fit of rage. The die-hard criminals will get around the system. Nutcases who gun people down in a McDonalds are not as likely to have access to the technology to get around the system.

When my Mom was going through the police academy, I got a very thorough training in guns, how to respect them and how to use one. And perhaps most importantly, when not to use one. As mama always said, if it's important enough to shoot someone it had better be important enough to kill 'em. The mystique was gone -- I never wanted to play with guns, because we'd just go out to the range. I think that the old image of grandpa taking the boy (or girl) out back and teaching them how to shoot is much more responsible gun ownership than trying to hide it from your kid in the nightstand drawer.

Which is why I'm strongly in favor of safety training as part of the licensing process. I know some of the bigger gun shops include time on their range and basic safety with a gun purchase -- I think this is a great idea (responsible gun selling), but shouldn't it include everyone in the household?

Sorry for rambling all over the place... guns are a touchy issue. How to keep 'em out of careless and criminal hands and yet preserve the rights of responible owners is a hard nut to crack.

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 11:39 AM

As another responsible gun owner, I see absolutely no problem with ballistic fingerprinting. The fact that a file exists showing what a bullet shot through, or a cartridge casing ejected from a gun looks like should mean absolutely nothing to me as long as I'm using the gun in a legal fashion. The fact that the data does exist would certainly make me think twice before using it in an illegal fashion.

How much good it would actually do, though, I'm not so sure. It would not stop anyone who is determined to use a gun in a crime. In fact, most guns used in crimes have either been stolen or passed through so many hands that being able to link a bullet to a particular gun to its original purchaser is still a dead end. And many of the folks into precision shooting (as, presumably, the current sniper is) may have modified their guns so much that the original ballistic data would be meaningless. And then, there are always shotguns that don't leave any ballistic evidence unless you're dumb enough to leave a shell casing lying around. Even so, I still think it's a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 11:13 AM

Appreciate the thoughts, John, but you didn't exactly answer the question of how fingerprinting *infringes* on the rights of "responsible" gun owners. Please elaborate beyond the bumper sticker rhetroic.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: John Hardly
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 11:07 AM

Oh, and I resent the hell out of yet another tragic incident being used to political advantage on he mentally weak.

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: John Hardly
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 11:06 AM

I can't tell you how it infringes on "responsible gun ownership" but I can tell you why it is a political tool rather than a law-enforcement enhancer...

...as soon as it becomes common place to keep records of gun "fingerprints" it will become just as commonplace to alter them.

We unfortunately live in a day where people are incapable of judging the reality of crime/law enforcement from an exciting episode of CSI.

Just one of those many cases where, again, I think we should be able to hold our own guy's feet to the fire and judge the logic of their rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: MMario
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 11:01 AM

They do need to have the GUN or a previous test on the gun before they can do the id though; however the testing of the spent cartridges or bullets CAN determine whether the SAME gun was used in multiple cases even when they cannot link it to a specific gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Guessed
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 11:00 AM

Hey this is a BullShit thread not a bullseye thread.

We have a total ban on guns here in the UK and it hasn't stopped the criminals' guns but it will slow it down. Which is all you can do ultimately.

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 10:56 AM

My buddy... Ahhh, heck no I couldn't, but if you close the doors I'll give it another try...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: GUEST,greg stephens
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 10:53 AM

well I had that Bobert profiled for the sniper, right part of the country, knows all the geography, right sort of background.But it's probably not him, he couldnt hit a barn door at at two paces.

Subject: BS: Ballistic Fingerprinting?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 10:44 AM

Well, I'm sure this is gonna get a few folks blood boilin' but, ahhh, what the heck. The technology exists to positively link spent shell casing and in some cases bullets to a particular gun. I know the NRA says we have enought laws that just need to be better enforced but we are now spending more than ever on law enforcement and incarceration and so maybe the laws we have aren't cutting it? And the NRA says it believes strongly in "responsible gun ownership" but how about "irresponsibvle gun ownership"? I would think that the NRA would be the first to support technology that would provide a much needed tool to law enforcement in catching the folks who decide its okay to shoot people.

I know the NRS's rhetoric but can't quite figure out their logic on this one. I mean we're not talking digging bullets out of deer, or dirt mounds at firing ranges, but bullets dug out of dead people. Can anyone explaine to me how this infringes on "responsible gun ownership"?

BTW, I am a former NRA member and a responsible gun owner.

Bobert