Ballistic "Fingerprinting"

[jfields 0]

In light of current events and all the gun control/gun ownership threads, I thought I'd toss out the issue of Ballistic "Fingerprinting".

To me, it seems to have very little potential downside, and many situations where it could prove useful. On a large scale, I also don't see that there would be much cost involved on a per gun level.

Pros, cons? Thoughts?

[Sonic 0]

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

-----------------------------------
It's like something out of that twilighty show about that zone

[AggieDave 6]

Since all the weapons that criminals use are new, off the shelf, legally bought firearms with the original barrels in them, and none of them were smuggled in from other countries who could give a rats ass, right?


Also, the thought of that next step into my privacy is scary, Ashcroft scary. Yes, this could prove to be valuable, but then it'll be used to justify the next step, then the next, landsliding against my rights.

Another thought, will I be required to have fingerprinting on the weapons that I already have? What about the collector firearms that I have that are worth a great deal of money that have NEVER been fired? I don't want them to loose value because of some asshat liberals and their ideals. Make sense?

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

[wildblue 7]

nope.. incredibly stupid idea and total waste of money. it's all a political ploy to get people on the 'guns are bad bandwagon'
Mainly waste of money. You 'finger print' a gun at the factory. Great... let me run a few hundred rounds though it and see if it's the same. Probably not. Anyone with half a brain could change their gun's 'finger print'

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

[AggieDave 6]

  Quote

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

Man, I hate that debate. People who stand on that side of the fence never seem to see the truth, even when its standing there in cold hard numbers. There have been many threads about this in the past, and more then once I have provided evidence showing that crime rates are MUCH higher and crime is MORE violent in countries where firearms are "banned." Take a look at Texas, our violent crime DROPPED by 50% the year after our legislature passed the Concealed Carry Laws.

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

[jfields 0]

Dave,

I'm not saying it is a cure-all by any means. I'm also not saying that your never-fired heirloom weapons should be forcibly taken, fired and returned to you. I'm also not naive enough to think that all criminals walk into stores, use their real IDs and buy weapons.

BUT...

I think that gradually, as weapons are replaced with new ones, the feature could be put into effect. It could help in some crime situations.

  Quote

Also, the thought of that next step into my privacy is scary

Why is an untraceable weapon a right? Without even going into the whole, "Right to bear arms" debate, when did the anonymity of a weapon and hindrance to police become a right as well? If you do no crime, how does this effect you in any way?

[Guest]

  Quote

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

Prohibition isn't doing the British a lot of good.

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

[AggieDave 6]

  Quote

when did the anonymity of a weapon and hindrance to police become a right as well? If you do no crime, how does this effect you in any way

There are reasons. For one, invasion of privacy, the government has no right to know what I own, aslong as it is legal. Also, if I'm doing no crime, then why does it matter debate is a falacy. Just because you are innocent, that doesn't stop the various law enforcement agencies from assuming you're not and basically ruining your life. Its happened before, it will happen again (the Olympic bomber guy, who is innocent, but the FBI was *sure* it was him is a good example). With the fingerprinted firearms (which is much more inaccurate then people think) would be a quick way for the government to assume you are at fault for a crime; only due to the fact that you have a similar firearm that has a similar fingerprint. See where this is going?

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

[jfields 0]

  Quote

Man, I hate that debate. People who stand on that side of the fence never seem to see the truth, even when its standing there in cold hard numbers.

Although I'm on the opposite side of that debate from you, I feel exactly the same way. So I'm not going to go there. We'll agree to disagree. I'm trying to stick to the more specific issue of pros and cons of having a ballistic record of firearms.

[jfields 0]

  Quote

which is much more inaccurate then people think

I don't claim to be knowledgeable about the details. How accurate is it? Is the accuracy something that degrades in a predictable way over the lifespan of the weapon (assuming same barrel), or is it something that changes dramatically even in the course of normal usage?

Of course people could do things to make the system less functional. That is true of anything, whether it is firearms, odometer rollback, fake drivers licenses, etc. But maybe it can help catch some of the less intelligent criminals.

  Quote

the government has no right to know what I own

Are you in favor of thorough background checks to help make sure you can get a weapon legally while making it harder for criminals or spur of the moment wanna-be's?

Does the right to drive imply a right to do so without a driver's license? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but I just don't understand the objection to the registration concept.

  Quote

Just because you are innocent, that doesn't stop the various law enforcement agencies from assuming you're not and basically ruining your life.

True, with or without a ballistic record. The flip side is that perhaps it could clear you. Who knows.


I didn't make this topic to troll. While I have a definitive stance on public gun ownership, I'm trying to have an open mind about this sub-issue.

[wildblue 7]

  Quote

I think that gradually, as weapons are replaced with new ones, the feature could be put into effect. It could help in some crime situations.

Did you read my earlier post? No, it is not an effective method of tracking weapons - it's rather easily defeated.

And haven't we already gone through the whole gun debate thing on here before?

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

[Guest]

  Quote

In light of current events and all the gun control/gun ownership threads, I thought I'd toss out the issue of Ballistic "Fingerprinting".

To me, it seems to have very little potential downside, and many situations where it could prove useful. On a large scale, I also don't see that there would be much cost involved on a per gun level.

Pros, cons? Thoughts?

Cons here - Just change the barrel and the firing pin, and it's a different fingerprint. The barrel can also be milled to change the pattern of lands and grooves. "Ballistic Fingerprinting" is not a solution to anything. It's just another knee-jerk, emotional, sound-bite gun-grab attempt, not a logical, rational effort.

And, how would this apply to the millions of firearms in private hands? How will the Feds demand that every firearms owner haul their weapons in for test-firing ("My 357 Magnum? So sorry, sold it years ago.")?

And, an immense database must be created - where is the money coming from for that?


Finally, consider the phrase "cop-killer bullet". Always elicits a visceral reaction, yet, what is it really? Can you define it? Or is it like Oliver Wendell Holmes' definition of pornography - I can't define it, but I know it when I see it? This kind of sound-bite term is meant for the press, not for the people, just like "ballistic fingerprinting". If you oppose it, or even express reservations about it, you're a "gun nut". You must be, because any "sensible" person would support it, no matter how useless it is, because we're doing it "for the children".

http://www.guntruths.com/Resource/Posters/1st_million_mom_march.htm

My fave pro site:
http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html

Don't get me started. This forum is supposed to be about skydiving.
mh

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

[AggieDave 6]

  Quote

Are you in favor of thorough background checks to help make sure you can get a weapon legally while making it harder for criminals or spur of the moment wanna-be's?

Obviously I don't mind background checks, since a very thorogh one was done when I got my CCW here in Texas. Once again, though, this matters since criminals buy weapons legally, right?

  Quote

Does the right to drive imply a right to do so without a driver's license?

You know, its been a while since I've read the constitution, but I don't remember driving being a right given to us...maybe I'm wrong...
Maybe there should be licenses for the freedom of speech, make people sit through safety courses to make sure they're not idiots...since this is a stance that anti-gun liberals like to take on firearms, lets do it with all our rights, why stop short?

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

[jfields 0]

  Quote

You know, its been a while since I've read the constitution, but I don't remember driving being a right given to us...maybe I'm wrong...

The sarcasm isn't helpful, Dave. I said I wasn't trying to get into the issue of whether you should be able to own a firearm, or whether the ability to own one really is a "right" or not. We disagree on those facts, but I don't want to talk about that. We've done that enough.

You totally skipped my sincere question about the accuracy of the ballistic record. I already stated that I wasn't an expert on it. I barely know anything about the matter. That is why I asked. As a gun owner and ownership advocate, you have the power to be helpful and educate me on the issue. That requires facts (which I believe you have), not rhetoric about rights. If it completely won't work, then we shouldn't do it. I agree with you on that, but other than changing components, nobody has told me how the signatures change over time or any other factors that render the concept invalid.

  Quote

Maybe there should be licenses for the freedom of speech, make people sit through safety courses to make sure they're not idiots

Dave, if they did this, neither of us would be able to have this discussion, because on occasion, we are both idiots.

[dunesurfer 0]

I can easily alter the "ballistic fingerprint" of any weapon I have access to. Also, with the current computer matching program, comparing rounds and casings with NEW weapons(no break in) the system was proven to be accurate 38% of the time. it seems to be way too little return for the cost and the damage done to our liberty.
read about it here

[AggieDave 6]

Sorry about the sarcasm, that was really uncalled for on my part. Sometimes somethings get me really worked up, this is one of them.

I'm going to walk away from this thread now, the attitude I've been in for the past couple weeks isn't one that will let me debate something I feel so strongly about, civily.

Maybe at Eloy we can sit down with a couple beers and discuss this, especially since it is easy to discuss this sort of thing in person AND this sememster will be over, I won't be under the strain I am under now. Blue skies, bro, I'll catch you in a different, more light hearted thread.

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

[jfields 0]

No problem. Taken to PM.

[Guest]

  Quote

  Quote

which is much more inaccurate then people think

Does the right to drive imply a right to do so without a driver's license? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but I just don't understand the objection to the registration concept.

That whole cars vs firearms hokum pisses me off royally. The "we license cars, so why not license guns?" question is bogus. I need a driver's license to drive a car on public roads (and the fees I pay go to road maintenance, etc. - it's really quite libertarian, actually - an egalitarian user fee. Use the service [the roads], pay as you go), but I need nothing to drive on private land.

Firearms ownership is a constitutional RIGHT, folks. Get a clue here (re: US vs Emerson) - the words "the people" mean the same in the Second Amendment (id est - the INDIVIDUAL) as they do in the First, the Fourth and so on. Don't let anybody tell you different - none of rights in the Bill of Rights is a "collective" (like collective farm!) right. Every one of those rights is for every one of us, not for a group of us. To do so implies that some rights (and some groups) are better than others. Everybody matters, and every right matters.

And I told y'all not to get me started...heh

mh

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

[freeflir29 0]

Hmmm....I see Justin will be first in line to get that Government GPS tracking chip implanted in his head. Ya know....just in case you get lost.....or have a medical emergency.

"Don't worry...I'm from the government and I'm here to help!!"

[mnischalke 0]

from NSSF:
What is Ballistic Imaging?

Ballistic imaging technology can be a useful tool in the investigation of crimes committed with firearms. As currently used, forensic experts are able to electronically scan into a database a shell casing(s) recovered from a crime scene to determine if those case(s) match those from other crime scenes. The technology can serve as a starting point in assisting law enforcement in determining if the same firearm was involved in multiple crimes.

The federal government has worked for nearly 10 years on developing an imaging network. The National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN), administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF), provides federal, state, and local law enforcement officials with critical ballistics information on crimes committed with a firearm. This system matches shell casings recovered from crime scenes to ascertain if a firearm has been used in multiple assaults. By focusing strictly on cases recovered from crime scenes, NIBIN can not be used to build a database of firearms owners thereby guaranteeing the security and legal rights of millions of Americans who are law-abiding gun owners.

How Does it Work?

When a firearm is discharged, both the shell casing and the bullet traveling down the barrel of the gun are imprinted with distinctive marks. The bullet takes on marks from the barrel’s rifling, and the casing is marked by the gun’s breech face, firing pin and shell ejector mechanism (Note: This depends on the type of firearm used. Some guns, such as revolvers or single-shot rifles might not leave ejection marks.) These imprints are distinctive to a firearm. A ballistic imaging program can run a casing through its database and select those that offer a close match. A final identification is made visually by a highly trained ballistic examiner. This process does not lend itself to examining bullets from a firearm. Often, bullets are severely damaged on impact. Bullets recovered are usually examined visually by experts.

Is this “Ballistic DNA” or “Ballistic Fingerprinting”?

Absolutely not. Unlike DNA or fingerprints that do not change over time, the unique marks that can identify a particular bullet or shell casing change due to a number of environmental and use factors. Barrels and operating parts of firearms change with use, wear and tear over time. Moreover, a person can, within minutes, use a file to scratch marks in a barrel or breech face, or replace a firing pin, extractor, and barrel thereby giving a firearm a completely “new” ballistic identity. Imaging remains a tool, but not a silver bullet, in criminal investigations.

What about a National Ballistic Imaging Database?

The creation of a national database that would store ballistic images from all firearms sold would involve huge costs to the government, firearms manufacturers, and customers. It raises questions about a legal “chain of evidence” (i.e., how to handle and store hundreds of millions of bullets or shell casings without exposing all such evidence to attack by defense lawyers), possibly break existing law by creating a database of legal firearms owners, and prove much less effective than NIBIN.

A recent study completed by the California Department of Forensic Services on creating a statewide ballistic imaging network stated that: “When applying this technology to the concept of mass sampling of manufactured firearms, a huge inventory of potential candidates will be generated for manual review. This study indicates that this number of candidate cases will be so large as to be impractical and will likely create logistic complications so great that they can not be effectively addressed.” The study pointed out that when expanding the database of spent shell casings, the system will generate so many “hits” that could be potential matches, it would not be of any use to forensic examiners. Other problems included guns making different markings on casings from different ammunition manufacturers; the shipping, handling, and storage of spent shell casings; some firearms do not leave marks that can be traced back to that particular firearm; and the system demands highly-trained personnel for proper operation.

Maryland and New York Ballistic Imaging Programs

Maryland introduced its own ballistic imaging system in 2000. Every new handgun that is sold in the state must be accompanied by spent shell casings for input into the imaging network. According to Maryland budget figures, approximately $5 million has been spent on the system. According to Maryland law enforcement officials, it contains over 11,000 imaged cartridges, has been queried a total of 155 times and has not been responsible for solving any crimes.

In New York, there have been thousands of cartridges entered into their database and, according to reports, no traces have resulted in criminal prosecutions.

Guns in Private Hands

There are an estimated 260 million firearms in private hands. It would be virtually impossible to retrieve these firearms for ballistics documentation without violating the constitutional rights of millions of law abiding firearms owners.

How Best to Use Ballistic Imaging Technology

There is a proposal in Congress, the Ballistic Imaging Evaluation and Study Act, introduced in both the House and Senate (by Representative Melissa Hart, R-PA, and Senator Zell Miller, D-GA) that orders the Department of Justice to contract for a study by the National Academy of Sciences, which would examine the many questions surrounding imaging technology and provide a list of recommendations to policymakers and Congress. Enacting the legislation to begin this study is a priority. The proper allocation of funds to fight crime is critical to ensuring safe communities. The study outlined in the legislation will provide firm scientific conclusions on which to base decisions on how best to deploy this technology.

mike

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

[jfields 0]

Mike,

While written with an obvious slant, that is the first substantial post to explain the guts of the issue at hand.

Thank you!

Clay,

You are just paranoid that the GPS chip would constantly show your location in the sheep barn. Conflictingly, you want to have GPS chips implanted in all your livestock so you can get government assistance tracking them down when you are horny.

[steve1 5]

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. I'm sure it does make some people feel safer to have more of these laws in effect. I mean it's easy to convince people who know little or nothing about guns, that this is the right thing to do. I remember talking to someone a while back about cop killer bullets. I tried to convince them that this was no big deal. Most any high powered rifle will shoot through a bullet proof vest. They couldn't believe that this was actually the case. And then there is the fear many people have of fully automatic weapons. I really don't think they are all that more lethal than a semi-auto weapon or even a shotgun at close range. It seems like most of the gun control laws are based on peoples fear which is often based on ignorance. Steve1

[jfields 0]

Mark,

How many times in this thread, and in bold type even, did I say I was just talking about the specific "fingerprinting" issue, not the overall issue of the right to bear arms? I've been in enough debates about that already. We don't resolve anything. We continue to interpret things very differently.

  Quote

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

We continue to disagree on the intent of the words above. Sadly, we can't ask for a clarification of what they meant when they were written. I think one thing, you another.

I cite U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) and Quillici v. Morton Grove. You cite U.S. v. Emerson. I rebut with Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, which even came after Emerson. 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. I'm sure you give more counterexamples.

Needless to say, it is hardly an established fact that we do or do not have a "right to bear arms" in an individual, unregulated fashion. The courts have gone back and forth on the issue, so it is obviously not a clear issue to the general population. If it was a clear, black & white issue, either we would already have a complete ban on firearms or they would be completely unregulated. The fact that we are still in the middle is due to the ambiguety of the law and the variations in interpretation.

However, all of that is totally aside from the actual issue I raised when I began the thread. I can see that there are probably some technical problems that may invalidate the whole "ballistic fingerprinting" concept. Fine. I asked to learn, not because my mind was made up. But that is from a technical standpoint, not from that of an elusive and debateable philisophical discussion of alleged "rights".

[Guest]

Well put, sir.

mh

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

[Guest]

  Quote

I can easily alter the "ballistic fingerprint" of any weapon I have access to. Also, with the current computer matching program, comparing rounds and casings with NEW weapons(no break in) the system was proven to be accurate 38% of the time. it seems to be way too little return for the cost and the damage done to our liberty.

read about it here

It's the height of naivete in our modern age to think that technology can or will provide a solution, if only we throw enough money at it. James Doohan said it best in a Star Trek picture - "The more complicated they make the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."

Meaning, we need to examine ourselves and our social structure, and not look to technology for quick, feel-good fixes.

I once heard G. Gordon Liddy (yes, he of Watergate infamy) say "I never saw a gun get off a table and shoot somebody."

I can make a zip gun from a car antenna in just a few minutes. How are you going to fingerprint that?

I can put a can of compressed air on a nailgun and hold up a liquor store with it. Try fingerprinting that.

The point I'm trying to make is that ballistic fingerprinting is useless, but there are handwringers desperate to "do something" no matter how foolish or wasteful it is.

To own firearms is to have a certain power, and with that power comes responsibility. As with all things there are those who will abuse their rights and their freedoms and cause others to suffer. It's them we should find and punish, and not apply "collective punishment" to all for the sins of a few.

mh

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