Ballistic Fingerprinting


PDA

Arcli9ht
February 11, 2003, 07:05 PM
I've been reading a bunch about ballistic fingerprinting here and elsewhere, and I don't quite understand why some of you are getting upset about it.
If it is because it looks like a national firearms database, then I completely understand.
But ballistic fingerprints are fallible (very fallible it seems). Just by using the gun, the markings on the casing change (and since you only have to provide one sample when the gun is brand spanking new, the print will be different down the road anyway).
From my relatively uneducated standpoint on the subject, I say let them make the system, piss a whole bunch of money away on it, and have it end up being a total failure due to volume of the samples and the changing of the fingerprints over time.
As this board is very good at doing, :p anyone want to educate me a little on the subject?

/Arcli9ht

If you enjoyed reading about "Ballistic Fingerprinting" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
geekWithA.45
February 11, 2003, 07:20 PM
A) It would in fact be a state or national database of gunowners, otherwise it'd be useless.
a1) grotesque invasion of privacy
a2) lists are necessary prelude to confiscation

B) That's MY money they're flushing down the toilet

C) False negatives: Ya don't catch the guy

D) False positives: an innocent guy is implicated

E) Frameup potential: swipe brass from a range

F) Greater and greater intrusions/infringements to plug up all the holes, since the whole thing leaks like a sieve. (see NJ gun repair bill : http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8519 for a real life example )

That oughta getcha started.

Matthew Courtney
February 11, 2003, 07:51 PM
Whenever the government pisses away money, I get mad. When they piss away money to create a database to be used in the future for gun confiscation, I get real mad. The only practical application of the database they are proposing is gun confiscation!

4thHorseman
February 11, 2003, 08:08 PM
I certainly can understand the other guys on this forum concern. They are valid I might add. My concern is the infringement on my second ammendment rights.
As I stated before, I believe as many others do, the second ammendment is a safeguard in place to take back OUR government if our government is taken over by a miltary dictatorship. It is OUR obligation to do so. BF assures the unwanted established government a means to stay in power by imprisoning anyone they want.
Bad Bad Ju Ju!!!! :fire:

answerguy
February 11, 2003, 08:15 PM
As proposed it is a data base of gun serial numbers attached to the BF not a data base of gun owners. BIG difference!

4thHorseman
February 11, 2003, 08:25 PM
"As proposed it is a data base of gun serial numbers attached to the BF not a data base of gun owners. BIG difference!"

I think there is NOT a difference. Why, because gun owner registration is sure to follow. It won't stop just there. It is an step in the direction of total confiscation.

geekWithA.45
February 11, 2003, 08:33 PM
Especially in states that require various purchase permits/safety inspections, plus NICS and the ATF forms....

Let's face it. Name+Address + make/model/caliber/serial number = full registration.

The major pieces are in place, awaiting assembly.

4thHorseman
February 11, 2003, 08:35 PM
BF is the instruction manual for assembly.:cuss:

Matthew Courtney
February 11, 2003, 08:43 PM
Because BF's deteriorate over time, investagators will have many BF's which are partial matches to the evidence. They will be running traces on many weapons and creating a defacto registration data base over time through the course of many investagations. Your pistol will become registered when it's BF is a certain % match to one subject to an inquiry. That is the best case scenario.

ReadyontheRight
February 11, 2003, 08:44 PM
...I say let them make the system, piss a whole bunch of money away on it, and have it end up being a total failure...

1. Where are "they" getting all this money?

2. If ballistic fingerprinting would solve crimes. Wouldn't fingerprinting everyone at birth solve even more? How about assuming we're all guilty until proven innocent? That would certainly make crimes easier to solve.

Ballistic Fingerprinting is just another few inches of the camel's nose into the tent. As soon as the antis get one system going, they'll start talking about the "ballistic fingerprinting loopholes".

blades67
February 11, 2003, 08:45 PM
It has a useful purpose, just a flawed system.

4thHorseman
February 11, 2003, 08:54 PM
"It has a useful purpose, just a flawed system."
Blades I known you for a while buddy, I can't believe you said that.
What did they do to you, give you a brain tap?

DeltaElite
February 11, 2003, 08:59 PM
Ballistic fingerprinting is garbage, but as long as the Govt is busy chasing this wild goose, they may not pursue other infringements.
Just a thought.

Arcli9ht
February 11, 2003, 09:02 PM
Thats what I was thinking, Delta. But, after reading that thing about NJ gun repairs, I'm not so sure.

/Arcli9ht

gun-fucious
February 11, 2003, 10:01 PM
well after the alligator has your foot in his mouth do you expect him to stop?

Can you see Boxter claiming that the investment spent between 2004 and 2006 just needs another database to work properly?

"We have made such progress in controling criminals and terrorists,
for the sake of the children, we need to insure the successful
impementation of all that we have strived for."

Some of Marylands representatives want to BF every gun and have a bill in consideration right now.

Tell me what good it will do?
If we know it is an ineffectual waste of resources
then they know the same thing.

So why do they want it?
What move on the chess board is this?

Is it a bartering strawman?

"We compromised on Ballistic Fingerprinting and agreed to not implement a national system, so now we want a continuation on the assault weapon ban."

capt_happypants
February 11, 2003, 10:17 PM
Ballistic fingerprinting is useful only during a criminal investigation, under very specific circumstances:

1. You have recoverd brass from the crime scene.

2. You have a suspect.

3. Said suspect was caught with a gun.

You use BF to establish a relationship between the brass and the recovered firearm. If you can prove that the gun was in the possession of the criminal at the time of the crime, BF can certainly help the prosecution's case, but probably won't solve it.

If you go to a national database, the utility of BF goes right out the window.

Drjones
February 11, 2003, 11:00 PM
It has a useful purpose, just a flawed system.

Blades, I too can't believe you said that.

Care to elaborate?


To answer the original question, well, as usual, the first post nailed it exactly, with many other great points made as well.

Arcli9t, let me ask you something:

Since you don't see a problem with the govt keeping lists of the guns we own, would you be ok with the govt. keeping a database including:

-Current picture (within 6 mos or so....maybe every month if they feel like it)

-Fingerprints

-DNA Sample

-Blood Sample

-Urine Sample

-Complete list of everything you own. Updated every single time you purchase something new. (YES, this includes groceries & trips to the hardware & drug store. After all, you could be purchasing "average household materials" to use to make bombs/drugs)

-List of all books, magazines, etc. you read

-List of all websites you visit

-List of all foods you eat.


If you would be comfortable with this, why? Because you have "nothing to hide?"

If you would not be comfortable with the govt. keeping such extensive records on you, why not? Since you don't have anything to hide, I mean...

Arcli9ht
February 12, 2003, 12:00 AM
Drjones,

It happens that I *do* have a problem with this whole system, it was just that my disagreement with it was not based so much on fact as a gut reaction. I wanted to get more info on why it is bad. I do not condone this kind of governmental BS.

But as for your list of stuff in a Govt. database, if I wanted to get a handgun license in NYC, where I live, I would have to turn in 2 recent photos, fingerprints, etc. plus tell them what guns I would have, when I sell them, when I aquire new ones, and have what kinds of ammo I can buy be strictly regulated.

It is being used to that kind of overly strict gun control that makes the BF idea not seem so harsh or different, it is already a reality for NYers.

/Arcli9ht

Drjones
February 12, 2003, 03:10 AM
It is being used to that kind of overly strict gun control that makes the BF idea not seem so harsh or different, it is already a reality for NYers.

:(

:cuss:


My condolences.

Hope I didn't sound too harsh above....I have a tendency to do that when I get passionate! :cool:

4570Rick
February 12, 2003, 03:24 AM
As soon as I can buy a "Fingerprinted" 1911 I will.







Then I'm going to build a race gun.
New barrel
New titanium firing pin
New Extractor
Polish the bolt face
Etc. etc. etc.



:D

4thHorseman
February 12, 2003, 03:48 AM
I just e-mailed the NRA and asked for their position on the comments made by Glock's VP.
I'll let you know when I get a reply.

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