Crime gun tracing


PDA






answerguy
December 27, 2003, 03:12 PM
Myth: Crime gun tracing doesn’t actually solve crimes.

Fact: Crime Gun tracing, like forensic finger printing, is widely considered an important crime-solving tool and is one of the most effective ways to uncover illegal gun traffickers. By tracing a gun used in crime (that is recovered), law enforcement can use the trace information both to solve that particular crime and to help identify gun traffickers and corrupt gun stores.

http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/myths_facts.html

What am I missing? Is there something in place right now that stops law enforcement from tracing guns that were used in crime? Why would I be against it? It seems to make sense to trace any gun found that has been used in crime, traced back to the original owner to see if any pattern developes. If two guns go back to the same person he might well be a gun runner.

If you enjoyed reading about "Crime gun tracing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
agricola
December 27, 2003, 03:20 PM
dons asbestos suit and sprays flame-retarding foam across the L+P board

Hkmp5sd
December 27, 2003, 03:29 PM
Nothing prevents LEOs from doing a forward trace on a recovered firearm. They take the firearm's serial number and go from the manufacturer, to the distributer, then dealer and finally to the first person that purchased the firearm on a 4473. That is the end of the trail in most cases.

Only requiring all firearms to be registered and all firearm transactions to be done through a licensed dealer could the process go any further. As has been proven through the years, gun registration does not work as criminals, by definition, do not buy firearms legally and fill out all of the nice government paperwork. Registration is a waste of time, money and LEO resources keeping track of honest gun owners. And has also been proven through the years, gun registration results in gun confiscation each and every time.

You are also reading information from an ANTI- site, meaning the information is biased in their direction. Take the comment,
Fact: Crime Gun tracing, like forensic finger printing, is widely considered an important crime-solving tool and is one of the most effective ways to uncover illegal gun traffickers.

The Ballistic Fingerprinting (http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/tech/fingerprint.htm) doesn't work either. If they happen to be talking about actual fingerprints from a person, then why not argue that we should fingerprint everyone in the US so we can have something to compare crimescene fingerprints against? At some point, individual privacy rights have to be considered, in owning firearms, fingerprints, DNA and what library books you read.

GigaBuist
December 27, 2003, 03:38 PM
First, nobody's really sure that the fingerprinting technique really works. I can't dig up any specific studies (but they're out there) that show laboratory tests are only 69% accurate. Really now, if you got -every- got in the United States fingerprinted do you honestly think that we have the technology to do pattern matching on various images and get a 100% match? Nope. Every round comes out slightly different, every shell casing has slightly different depths of marks. It's not an exact science. Will it one day? Maybe.

However, markings -DO- wear out overtime. If you've put 10,000 rounds through your Glock the casings and bullets will start to show different markins do to wear patterns. So then what, do you have to haul every gun in once a year for refingerprinting? Nice.

Now, assume that we've actually all got our firearms fingerprinted... that's defacto registration, and we all know what that leads to: confiscation.

Maryland has had their handguns registered/finger printed for quite a while now. Last I knew (read this about 9 months ago) it has solved zero crimes. No matches. Huh.

Canada's system has matched: 4, according to 'America's First Freedom's' last issue.

And do they honestly think that criminal dealers won't know enough to take a Dremel to key pieces to change the tool markings? Yes, criminals still get caught with fingerprints -- and that can be defeated with gloves -- but dealers are another matter. Chop shops know enough to repaint cars, don't they? If you're dealing in illegal goods you WILL know how to protect your behind here.

So, now what... do we make it a crime to have a Dremel or a piece of sandpaper if you're a firearms owner? After all, you could be using it to change the magical fingerprinting marks on your firearms!

What if upon re-fingerpriting your weapon it doesn't match anything in the database? Will you be charged with unlawfully modifying your firearm? You think you've ever getting that gun back? hah!

There are two camps that support such measures. Well, 3. The uninformed, the people making the machines/technology to do this, and the people that want "Mr and Mrs Ameirca to turn 'em all in. Every single one of 'em".

answerguy
December 27, 2003, 03:49 PM
Nothing prevents LEOs from doing a forward trace on a recovered firearm. They take the firearm's serial number and go from the manufacturer, to the distributer, then dealer and finally to the first person that purchased the firearm on a 4473. That is the end of the trail in most cases.

If LE traces 3 Hi-Point pistols to a fellow at 123 DaHood St. do you think that we have a chance at catching a gun runner?

jimpeel
December 27, 2003, 04:09 PM
Agdons asbestos suit and sprays flame-retarding foam across the L+P boardWhy? It's a legitimate question that he wants addressed. If he is in search of answers, he has come to the right place.

answerguyWhat am I missing?The addy of those who posted that misinformation. Americans for Gun Safety is a two-man gun-control group who try to come off as pro-firearm. They are not. Is there something in place right now that stops law enforcement from tracing guns that were used in crime?No. They can trace a firearm now but the anti-firearms groups, like AGS, want to register all firearms and firearm owners and place them in a criminal database. Massachusetts has done this and you are placed on the database with robbers, rapists, and murderers. Why would I be against it?Freedom, plain and simple. The costs of such a program would also be horrendous.

Canada instituted firearms registration in 1934 and they have publically admitted that firearms registration has yet to solve a single crime.

They also instituted C-68, which is the firearms owner registration which was supposed to have a cost in the tens-of-millions of dollars. They have now admitted that the cost of the program will exceed one billion dollars in early 2004. There are estimated to be seven million firearms in Canada. When you take this to its logical conclusion -- realizing that there are 250 million firearms in the United States, and that the Canadian dollar is only worth seventy-six cents (US) -- the costs we are talking about in the United States stagger the imagination.

Couple this with the knowledge of how many freedoms have been coupled to their cost, like bicycle helmets, motorcycle helmets, seatbelts, airbags, etc; and how long do you think it will be before the government declares firearms registration to be too expensive to maintain and then use those same records to collect them all in the name of cost savings? It seems to make sense to trace any gun found that has been used in crime, traced back to the original owner to see if any pattern developes. If two guns go back to the same person he might well be a gun runner.Or he might just be the guy whose firearm collection was stolen.

The anti-firearms groups want you to believe that their suggestions are "common sense" (you'll hear that a lot, as if you lack any common sense of your own) and "the right thing to do". The true goal of these groups is total disarmament of the citizenry. It is a purely political move that has nothing to do with safety.

They will tell you things like "The police and military should be the only ones to have firearms." Are you familiar with the Knapp, Mollen, or Christopher commissions?

Under the plan the anti-firearms agendists have laid out, the same police that played a starring role in the Knapp, Mollen, and Christopher commissions will be the same police that will have the only legal firearms.

At this point, the military may also be used as police in our country and on our streets.

If you think this couldn’t happen, look at the efforts that have been made to weaken the Posse Comitatus law. Senator Charles Schumer, when he was a Congressional Representative, lead that charge. A quick trip to the library to thumb through the book by Bill Clinton and Al Gore “Putting People First: How We Can All Change America” reveals that in that book, they state numerous times that there should be a national police force in America. There can be no more dangerous thing. Other countries call them the SS, Stazi, KGB, et al.

In "The Development of the American Police: An Historical Overview", Craig Uchida notes that "If there is a common theme that can be used to characterize the police in the 19th Century, it is the large-scale corruption that occurred in most police departments across the United States" (Uchida, 1993). In "Forces of Deviance: Understanding the Dark Side of Policing", Kappeler, Sluder, and Alpert point out that corruption among police is not new or peculiar to the late 20th century. "To study the history of police is to study police deviance, corruption and misconduct." (Kappeler et al., 1994.)

The one thing that you must never forget is that those who hold the monopoly on firearms will also hold the monopoly on the violence committed with those firearms.

"Smart gun" technology is still one more ploy on the part of the anti-firearms agendists. They demand that these features be place in firearms and they will use the failure of those devices to sue firearms manufacturers into bankruptcy. If you don't believe this, or you think I am merely passing on Patriot Mythology or I am just one more "gun wacko", read this thread" http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54958

In that case, the litigants stated in their original pleading that the firearm lacked a "loaded chamber indicator" (one of their "sensible" measures they tout as needed on every firearm). The defense showed them that the firearm in question did, indeed, have a "loaded chamber indicator" and the case was found in the favor of the defense with an award of court costs to Beretta.

Now, they have appealed the case on specious grounds and the hallmark of their current litigation is "the gun's chamber-loaded indicator, a red dot on the barrel that is raised one millimeter when a round is in the chamber, was too subtle for unintended users".

So they had what they had demanded be incorporated into the firearm and they still found fault in its design but they have no suggestions for what would have been better. They are still suing even though the firearm in question meets their demands for a "common sense loaded chamber indicator".

I hope this answers some of your questions.

Don't listen to Ag. We are not all seething gun nuts in search of prey to flame.

jimpeel
December 27, 2003, 04:15 PM
If LE traces 3 Hi-Point pistols to a fellow at 123 DaHood St. do you think that we have a chance at catching a gun runner?As a private citizen, you are allowed to sell your private property to anyone you wish. The fact remains that the "gun runner" may be a sixty-eight-year-old widow who disposed of her dead husband's firearms through the classified pages of the newspaper (still one more thing the anti-firearms agendists are attempting to ban).

Wildalaska
December 27, 2003, 05:17 PM
Nothing prevents LEOs from doing a forward trace on a recovered firearm. They take the firearm's serial number and go from the manufacturer, to the distributer, then dealer and finally to the first person that purchased the firearm on a 4473. That is the end of the trail in most cases.

But not in all....it can and does lead to arrests and convictions for either the actual crime or a related crime...thus its just another tool....

Many responsible gun owners, when selling a gun in a private party transaction, get a bill of sale with the purchasers name etc. I know of one fella who does all personal transfers via FFLs so that he is "off the hook" in case of misuse. As he also mentioned to me, "if they object to the paperwork I dont want to sell it to them"...his gun, his right to do so of course.

Registration of all firearms would, in a theoretical sense, reduce crime IF AND ONLY IF it was coupled with the most draconian penalties for posession of a non registered firearm. Such a scheme would be entirely UNACCEPTABLE to the gun owning public however absent clear constituional protection of the the right to keep arms......

WildtheorizingAlaska

Hkmp5sd
December 27, 2003, 05:23 PM
True, but that is the end of the "official" government required trail. I think all gun owners would be wise to keep records of their private sales as you mentioned. I don't want to see it become madatory or requiring all sales to go through an FFL.

saddenedcitizen
December 27, 2003, 05:58 PM
They are absolute masters at 'semantic spin'
Don't let the term 'fingerprint' confuse or mislead.
Your fingerprints do not change over your lifetime.
You can sand them off and they'll grow back'

Ballistic fingerprinting is a 'whole 'nother issue'
in that - 'there ain't no such thing'

Use any ONE of the following SHORT list -

Change the barrell, bolt, bolt face, take a
file/dremel/peice of emory cloth to the
chamber and you change the 'fingerprint'

The whole idea is ludicrous but to the uninformed
masses who learn everything they think they know
from TV it sounds wonderful.

Also, as for 'tracing back' - sounds great BUT -
what if there is nothing to trace (old firearm
NEVER 'registered' ANYWHERE).
Manufacturer has serial # (IF manufacturer
is still in business) and said firearm was
sold to ABC Gun Dealers in 19??
Now what ?? NOTHING, that's what.

Even if the dealer can be found (assuming
it even WENT through a dealer - smuggling,
black market etc.) and he has his paperwork
in order, now all you have is the original
purchaser who may or may not have the
firearm - stolen (source for most guns used
in crime), sold, lost, given away, the list is
endless.

Sorry, just another pathetic attempt by the
anti's to justify total registration.

And never forget, all it would take is
ONE transposition of a digit and you
might find youself on the wrong end
of an investigation, wondering 'what
the **** happened ?' and whether
or not the legal costs for you to
PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE (!) is going
to bankrupt you.

jimpeel
December 27, 2003, 07:06 PM
The main, and seriously flawed, theory for "tracing" firearms is that the authorities will have the offending firearm in their custody. Drive-by shootings rarely leave evidence other than the bullets and, in the case of a semi-auto, shell casings. With revolvers, there is not even that much.

Firearms are rarely left at the scene of a crime. Criminals tend to take them with them to their next crime.

answerguy
December 27, 2003, 07:59 PM
As a private citizen, you are allowed to sell your private property to anyone you wish.

Does that include someone known to you as a felon?

Hkmp5sd
December 27, 2003, 08:02 PM
Federal law prohibits an individual from selling a privately owned firearm to a person he knows is cannot legally own/possess that firearm, including felons.

jimpeel
December 27, 2003, 08:34 PM
Does that include someone know to you as a felon?Prior to GCA-68, yes. Then the legislature amended the Constitution to remove a Constitutional right from those they thought should be precluded from that right.

Um, did I say "amended the Constitution"? Oops. I meant amended the Constitution by legislative fiat in lieu of a Constitutional amendment.

My mistake. That "Constitution / Law of the Land" thing is so blurred now, ya know.

Standing Wolf
December 27, 2003, 09:05 PM
Fact: Crime Gun tracing, like forensic finger printing, is widely considered an important crime-solving tool and is one of the most effective ways to uncover illegal gun traffickers.

Nope. That's a plain old-fashioned lie. A few guns used by criminals are traced; the vast majority, however, are not.

The obvious solution isn't to solve crimes, but prevent them by bringing the full force of the law to bear on criminals.

answerguy
December 27, 2003, 09:14 PM
Does anyone besides me care about people supplying guns to gang bangers?

jimpeel
December 27, 2003, 09:43 PM
Does anyone besides me care about people supplying guns to gang bangers?For being the answerguy, you sure are full of questions; sort of like the "in-search-of-an-answerguy". :D

If you can show me that "gangbangers" are less deserving of the protections of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, or that their citizenship is forfeit, I will be the first to say "Yes." Until that time, I have to cleve to the tenets of the Constitution and BoR without exception.

Are they any less deserving of free speech rights? After all, they clog our airwaves with that Rap crap with its profanity and misogyny.

Are they any less deserving of religious freedom? Many of them are members of the Nation of Islam, a hate-filled, anti-semitic, racist organization with the likes of Louis Farrakahn at its head.

Get my drift? The abrogation of any right for any person is the abrogation of all rights for all persons.

GigaBuist
December 27, 2003, 10:08 PM
Does anyone besides me care about people supplying guns to gang bangers?

If they've been convicted of a felony it's already illegal.

If they're trying to carry it concealed that's probably illegal.

Using it to commit a crime is illegal.

Let's face it, they already do the above three. Heaping on more laws doesn't help. I operate under the assumption that every BG out there has a gun already, or will get a gun if they want one. You can point to a myriad of laws that are in place trying to keep the guns out of the hands of bad guys but they just aren't working!

Honestly, I say we quit dinking around and just quit trying to legislate them away. At least then every sheeple will have to pull their head out of the sand and just admit that bad guys have guns, so the good guys need them too. Nobody has ever, nor will we ever, keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.

I may be willing to concede that we should prevent purchases from mentally ill people. Although even that becomes a slippery slope. Get slightly aggitated with a cop on a bogus traffic stop and they could label you a nutjob. It doesn't happen right now, but if the politicians saw that as the only way to keep firearms out of the hands of citizens they'd start doing it.

Hey, some people could take a look at portions of my life and label me an unstable nutjob. I'm a member of the NRA, I keep "large" ammounts of ammunition on hand, I have an absurdly large American Flag hung upon my wall, I read the Bible, I read the writings of our founders, I own camoflauge clothing, I carry knives, and I've been known to toss myself out of airplanes far after they've left the ground.

It wouldn't be hard to find a blissninny with a degree in psychology to see that and smack a permanent "totally whacko" label on me.

I am not at all for removing the rights of people with past felony convictions either. I know, personally, a gentleman who made a stupid mistake when he was 19 or so that to this day cannot own a handgun: He's in his late forties now! He's planning on going through the hooplah to get his rights restored, but the though of a person having to ask the government for the rights back just makes my stomach turn. The only offense you should forfeight your rights over should be treason or sedition, as that's a clear indication that you don't even care about our country of the protections it's afforded you.

Then again... slippery slope. Take my above description of myself and it's not too hard to twist it into making me out to be a revolutionary. No guns for me I guess.

The words "gun control" should just disappear from the American vocabulary, unless it's in reference to using two hands, proper trigger pull, and putting rounds down range in tight groups. That's the only type of gun control that's reasonable.

NukemJim
December 27, 2003, 10:15 PM
Does anyone besides me care about people supplying guns to gang bangers?

Yes I do but what does that have to do with gun registration ?

There are already laws ( whether you like them or not) against a felon buying a gun, holding a gun, holding ammo for a gun, buying a gun for someone else exculisive of it's use as a gift, and here in Illinois it is unlawfull for anyone (other than police/armedsecurity/guns that were registered prior to 1982 (approx) ) to have a gun in the City of Chicago, unlawful for "assault weapons" to be in Cook County, it is unlawful for anyone other than police/armed security to carry a gun, you must have a valid Firearms Owner IDenitfication card showing you have no reason you cannot have a gun and you must be 21 to own a handgum,

So let's see why a gang banger in Chicago going to pay any more attention to the new law than they do to the current laws?

Also please to remember there are somewhere between 100,000,000 to 200,000,000 firearms in the US few of which have been registered. I think that it would be far more effective to control the few gangbangers there are rather than all the guns.

Besides wich, gangbangers do not need guns. A friend of mine was killed by a gang banger with a baseball bat. Misidentification. Oops :cuss: :fire: :banghead:

For a good review of gun registration around the world I would recomend "The cowboy,the mountie and the samurai"

NukemJim

Hkmp5sd
December 27, 2003, 10:29 PM
I think there might be some confusion on existing laws and how criminals attain firearms. Criminals do not enter a gun store, fill out the paperwork, background check, waiting period, etc. and get a gun. They either buy guns on the black market, talk someone that can legally buy a gun to do if for them or steal them.

There are already some safeguards in place. If the police get a rash of recovered firearms that they trace as being sold by the same licensed dealer, they will go check his records and see whats up. Is he selling them under the table? Easy to find out if his paperwork isn't correct.

If that fellow you mention at 123 DaHood St. walks into a gun store and purchases 3 hi-points, the dealer is required by law to send a form to ATF letting them know this guy is making multiple purchases. They can then go see why he is buying so many guns in one shot.

If they check a gun shops records and find the same guy has bought one handgun every month for the last year, possibly doing so to stay under the radar on multiple purchases, they can go check him out.

There are plenty of ways to identify people buying guns to resale on the black market. All it takes it a little time and some record checks. Unfortunately, ATF is too busy to bother with inspecting records.

If you enjoyed reading about "Crime gun tracing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!