Came across this the other day
I read the news today oh boy! Page 301
Quote: DaButt @ January 13 2011, 10:35 PM GMTYou're making that up out of thin air. As I've said several times, his friends say he leaned left and there is not a sliver of evidence that shows he paid any attention to the Tea Party or Republicans in general. But there is physical and historical evidence which shows that the shooter had personal and acrimonious encounters with the congresswoman back in 2007 when the Tea Party didn't exist and nobody knew who Sarah Palin was.
Hey, I'm with you, I like Sarah Palin! I like the way she uses her position as a media pundit to denounce media pundits.
Quote: billwill @ January 13 2011, 10:36 PM GMTBTW: what I proposed would not cost the taxpayer, it should be the arms makers shouldering the costs.
Who would then pass the cost onto the taxpayers every time he/she purchased a firearm.
Let's not forget that a government agency said that the program was an utter failure. It didn't solve any crimes, it didn't make detectives' work any easier and all it did was suck money out of the law-abiding citizens' pockets and create another layer of useless bureaucracy.
There are at least a dozen ways to circumvent ballistic fingerprinting and most of them don't require anything more than the metal file which you pointed to as a cause for requiring fingerprinting in the first place!
Gun purchasers should be happy to pay for supporting such a database,as it can more easily prove innocence rather than guilt.
>It didn't solve any crimes,
Apparently it did actually, after the report you quoted, but only one.
Naturally such a database won't work too well if only one State takes part as many weapons will not necessarily have been made in that State. Also many will be old guns made before registration.
Anyway that is/was a database of cartridge cases not the rifling marks on bullets.
Filing the barrel actually makes a gun MORE identifiable, but only after the event.
Apparently at one stage Glock barrels were being made by a process that made them VERY identical, so since then they have been introducing deliberate extra unique grooves in barrels. Google [Miami barrel]. I presume that they do actually keep a database of those marks.
Quote: billwill @ January 13 2011, 11:14 PM GMTAnyway that was a database of cartridge cases not the rifling marks on bullets.
It's the same idea: every gun leaves unique marks on a bullet and case when it's fired.
Except when the barrel has been altered by a wire brush or file.
Except when the firing pin has been altered by a file.
Except when reloaded ammunition is used.
Except when the barrel has been changed out.
Except when ball ammunition is used.
Etc, etc.
Quote: billwill @ January 13 2011, 11:14 PM GMTmany weapons will not necessarily have been made in that State.
Most of our handguns are made in Europe. 
My pistol was made in Croatia and Glocks like the one used in the Arizona shootings are made in Austria.
All the talk about fingerprinting is useless anyway since people who buy guns legally tend to follow the law and don't go around murdering people and gangsters and drug dealers don't buy their guns legally.
Let's face it, no American government is ever going to ban carrying firearms. It's a academic debate.
But as regards getting rid of kitchen knives, cricket bats etc, who thinks anyone could kill nine people with a garden fork before he/she was overpowered and stopped?
Quote: DaButt @ January 13 2011, 11:38 PM GMTIt's the same idea: every gun leaves unique marks on a bullet and case when it's fired.
Except when the barrel has been altered by a wire brush or file.
Except when the firing pin has been altered by a file.
Except when reloaded ammunition is used.
Except when the barrel has been changed out.
Except when ball ammunition is used.
Etc, etc.Most of our handguns are made in Europe.
My pistol was made in Croatia and Glocks like the one used in the Arizona shootings are made in Austria.
All the talk about fingerprinting is useless anyway since people who buy guns legally tend to follow the law and don't go around murdering people and gangsters and drug dealers don't buy their guns legally.
It's one set of myths against another.
This petition says that most of the EXCEPTs that you quote above are myths. http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/change-california-s-gun-laws-ballistic-fingerprinting.html
Gun Lobby Myths About Ballistic Fingerprinting:
Ballistic fingerprinting images change as bullets are fired, making matches impossible:
Not true. In fact, federal BATF agents reported that they were able to match ballistic fingerprints even after 5,000 rounds were fired. Ballistic fingerprinting images are remarkably durable and few criminals fire their weapons anywhere near that often.*
Criminals would easily alter the ballistic fingerprint of their guns to thwart tracing:
Not true. In fact, federal BATF agents report that in the past 15 years, they have only come across one case in which a ballistic fingerprint was altered enough to prevent a match. The ballistic fingerprinting system looks for similarities in the marks, not differences. BATF stated that, "Just as a determined individual could alter a firearm, a similarly determined individual could alter his fingerprints through the application of acid or by other means. While it is possible to frustrate the fingerprint identification process through gloves or other hand coverings, there is no way to prevent a firearm used at a crime scene from leaving marks on the bullets and cartridge casings expelled from it... Research has concluded that in the overwhelming majority of cases, both (ballistic fingerprint) toolmarks and fingerprints are useful evidence for criminal cases."*
Ballistic fingerprinting is "back-door registration" of gun owners:
Not true. In fact, the ballistic fingerprint database would not have to include any names or other information about a gun owner. The database could simply include the manufacturer's serial number, make and model so that police could identify the crime gun. Police would then trace the crime gun by checking existing local gun sale records just as they do every day with other crime guns.
Crime guns are usually stolen so ballistic fingerprints won't lead to criminals:
Not true. This is a gun lobby fabrication. In fact, according to BATF, most crime guns are obtained through legitimate channels, from gun stores or gun shows. They are not stolen.
Unless every existing gun was ballistic fingerprinted, the system would be ineffective:
? Not true. In fact, since most crime guns are relatively new - the average crime gun was sold in the last three years - a ballistic fingerprinting system would only need to record images from new guns in order to produce important police leads. Ballistic fingerprinting of all new guns before they were sold would result in thousands of crime-gun leads for law enforcement within just a couple years.
The ballistic fingerprint database would be so large it would be unworkable:
Not true. In fact, federal BATF agents report that the time needed for a computerized ballistic fingerprint match dropped from four seconds in 1994 to just three-tenths of a second by 1999, and BATF estimated speeds will continue to rapidly advance. BATF also reported that the ability of the system to match bullets and casings actually improves as more images are entered which allow the computer system to refine its search.*
Maryland's ballistic fingerprinting couldn't catch the sniper so the system doesn't work:
Not true. In fact, Maryland only allows police to ballistic fingerprint handguns before they are sold - the sniper is using a rifle. No ballistic fingerprint information is collected for rifles or assault weapons in Maryland, though state authorities are pushing to expand the system to include assault rifles. New York also collects ballistic fingerprint data, but again only for handguns.
Quote: billwill @ January 13 2011, 11:53 PM GMTIt's one set of myths against another.
This petition says that most of the EXCEPTs that you quote above are myths
That's an anti-gun organization so of course they're going to deny it. But you're a smart man and certainly you can wrap your head around the fact that the "unique" markings are made by the hard steel of the barrel on the softer lead/copper of the bullet and brass of the case.
Now think about how easy it would be to alter that steel with a file or other abrasive device. Gun barrels can be removed and replaced in a few seconds and that, too, would change the markings. You may not be aware of it, but many gun owners use reloaded ammunition. The brass cases are already marked by a previous gun, so that would render any match void.
DaButt's absolutely right.
We need *more* nuclear weapons, not less. The nuclear deterrent is a deterrent. If we liberalize the ownership of nuclear weapons, then everybody will be able to defend themselves. Including the Iranians, North Koreans, Al Qaeda, that bloke I met down the pub last night...
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ January 14 2011, 12:40 AM GMTDaButt's absolutely right.
We need *more* nuclear weapons, not less.
It wouldn't be a concern if every nation had nuclear weapons as long as they used them defensively and as a last resort. Sort of like law-abiding gun owners do ...
Quote: DaButt @ January 14 2011, 12:45 AM GMTIt wouldn't be a concern if every nation had nuclear weapons as long as they used them defensively and as a last resort. Sort of like law-abiding gun owners do ...
Gotcha!
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ January 14 2011, 12:48 AM GMTGotcha!
Nope.
Quote: DaButt @ January 14 2011, 12:49 AM GMTNope.
Well, yup.
When you draw the "weapons of mass destruction" line you don't include (I think) things like guns. Reasonable people put guns in that category too.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ January 14 2011, 12:57 AM GMTReasonable people put guns in that category too.
No they don't.
My firearm was purchased legally and I was subjected to a full background check. No laws were broken.
Counties like North Korea, Iran, Iraq and the like are/were working on nuclear weapons in absolute violation of numerous treaties and resolutions. Night and day difference.
But you have to reload guns & you can only shoot one person at a time.
They are weapons of mass destructions eventually maybe.