I am currently a college student writing a research essay on Ballistic Fingerprinting, and I happened to stumble across this website. I have only found a few threads in which they talk about this topic, all in which everyone seems to be disagreeing with the Integrated Ballistics Identification System (IBIS) but none seem to give valid reasons as to why they oppose it. Valid being that they have not backed it up with anything besides the fact "they disagree with it," or they just "do not want it." I am natural on the topic, and don't really care either way, but I am curious as to why people are disagreeing with it.
Ballistic Fingerprinting
- Thread starter Eclipse
- Start date
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,66007,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAlixegkf0o
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200502040751.asp
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2005/01/why-ballistic-fingerprinting-doesnt.html
All of the above links go into some detail about why ballistic fingerprinting is a bad idea. The subject has been discussed here for almost ten years now, so I find it difficult to believe you were unable to find any "valid" reasons why it should not be adopted. If you search the archives here, you'll even find links to the original state of California assessment on ballistic fingerprinting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAlixegkf0o
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200502040751.asp
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2005/01/why-ballistic-fingerprinting-doesnt.html
All of the above links go into some detail about why ballistic fingerprinting is a bad idea. The subject has been discussed here for almost ten years now, so I find it difficult to believe you were unable to find any "valid" reasons why it should not be adopted. If you search the archives here, you'll even find links to the original state of California assessment on ballistic fingerprinting.
Would biometric fingerprinting be of much use if fingerprints naturally changed over time or if people could alter their fingerprints at will?
A firearm's "fingerprint" changes with use as the metal parts wear. The "fingerprint" can also be manually altered by use of common tools, processes or merely changing parts. As an exercise for the student, compute how many combinations can be fabricated from the slides, magazines, firing pins, barrels, extractors and ejectors of four 'identical' pistols; these being components that come in contact with a cartridge case and leave markings on that case.
Also keep in mind that those using revolvers in crimes generally don't leave cartridge cases onsite.
A firearm's "fingerprint" changes with use as the metal parts wear. The "fingerprint" can also be manually altered by use of common tools, processes or merely changing parts. As an exercise for the student, compute how many combinations can be fabricated from the slides, magazines, firing pins, barrels, extractors and ejectors of four 'identical' pistols; these being components that come in contact with a cartridge case and leave markings on that case.
Also keep in mind that those using revolvers in crimes generally don't leave cartridge cases onsite.
In addition the science of why it shouldn’t be done Id like to ask you to consider the following.
The Bill of Rights only mentions one personal possession in a very specific way and that is the "Right to keep and bear arms." No other possession has this very specific protection.
Why because the founders of our nation knew it was essential in order to maintain freedom and felt it was necessary for the protection of individuals and familys.
Do we finger print you prior to using your freedom of speech? How about hand prints prior to using your freedom of religion?
Rights do not come from government, rights exist with or without government and are items that all forms of government should respect.
The Bill of Rights only mentions one personal possession in a very specific way and that is the "Right to keep and bear arms." No other possession has this very specific protection.
Why because the founders of our nation knew it was essential in order to maintain freedom and felt it was necessary for the protection of individuals and familys.
Do we finger print you prior to using your freedom of speech? How about hand prints prior to using your freedom of religion?
Rights do not come from government, rights exist with or without government and are items that all forms of government should respect.
2damnold4this
New member
I don't think people have a problem with forensic testing of a bullet or shell casing against a particular suspect's gun. What doesn't work efficiently is a system like Maryland uses with a large database of shell casings from every semi auto handgun sold in the state. The National Academies has released a report you should read before you write your report.
Here are a few highlights:
The committee concludes that a national reference database of ballistic images should not be established.
Images from more than a million guns would be entered into such a database every year, and many of these would have similar toolmarks. Because current technology for collecting and comparing toolmarks is not sufficiently precise in distinguishing extremely fine marks among so many images, searches would return too many possible matches to be practically useful. In addition, the type or brand of ammunition used in the initial firing of a gun would not necessarily be the same as the ammunition later used in a crime. This difference could be a significant source of error in generating possible matches.
The committee was not charged with issuing a verdict on whether toolmarks are unique -- that is, whether each gun leaves marks that could not be made by any other firearm. Nor was the committee charged to recommend whether toolmark evidence should be admissible in court. However, it became clear to the committee early on that the assumption that toolmarks are unique to each gun has not yet been fully scientifically demonstrated. Much more research would be needed to determine whether toolmarks are truly unique, or even to estimate the probability that they are unique.
Consequently, the committee advises against one statement frequently made by firearms examiners -- that toolmarks link bullets or casings to a particular gun "to the exclusion of all other firearms." Given that uniqueness has not been demonstrated, such statements do not have a firm statistical basis. These claims, which imply an error rate of zero, also don't reflect the element of subjectivity involved in declaring a match, a determination that's always made by a firearms examiner.
The conclusion that uniqueness has not been fully established doesn't mean that toolmarks or ballistic imaging technologies are not useful. It is clear to the committee that the toolmarks generated by firing guns are not completely random and volatile, and that the current imaging technology is definitely helpful in generating leads for law enforcement investigation. Thus, our report recommends many ways to improve ATF's existing database of crime-related ballistic evidence, called the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network or NIBIN, which permits investigators at about 230 participating law enforcement agencies to search evidence against images from their own jurisdiction as well as from other departments.
For example, ATF should consider establishing protocols for entering images of multiple exhibits from the same gun, ideally involving various types of ammunition; currently, only a single exhibit is entered in some jurisdictions. The report also recommends several ways to improve the database's technical platform -- for example, by making it simpler to conduct searches across multiple regions of the country. In addition, we recommend more research on a possible future shift from using two-dimensional photographic techniques to using three-dimensional surface measurement techniques.
Here are a few highlights:
The committee concludes that a national reference database of ballistic images should not be established.
Images from more than a million guns would be entered into such a database every year, and many of these would have similar toolmarks. Because current technology for collecting and comparing toolmarks is not sufficiently precise in distinguishing extremely fine marks among so many images, searches would return too many possible matches to be practically useful. In addition, the type or brand of ammunition used in the initial firing of a gun would not necessarily be the same as the ammunition later used in a crime. This difference could be a significant source of error in generating possible matches.
The committee was not charged with issuing a verdict on whether toolmarks are unique -- that is, whether each gun leaves marks that could not be made by any other firearm. Nor was the committee charged to recommend whether toolmark evidence should be admissible in court. However, it became clear to the committee early on that the assumption that toolmarks are unique to each gun has not yet been fully scientifically demonstrated. Much more research would be needed to determine whether toolmarks are truly unique, or even to estimate the probability that they are unique.
Consequently, the committee advises against one statement frequently made by firearms examiners -- that toolmarks link bullets or casings to a particular gun "to the exclusion of all other firearms." Given that uniqueness has not been demonstrated, such statements do not have a firm statistical basis. These claims, which imply an error rate of zero, also don't reflect the element of subjectivity involved in declaring a match, a determination that's always made by a firearms examiner.
The conclusion that uniqueness has not been fully established doesn't mean that toolmarks or ballistic imaging technologies are not useful. It is clear to the committee that the toolmarks generated by firing guns are not completely random and volatile, and that the current imaging technology is definitely helpful in generating leads for law enforcement investigation. Thus, our report recommends many ways to improve ATF's existing database of crime-related ballistic evidence, called the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network or NIBIN, which permits investigators at about 230 participating law enforcement agencies to search evidence against images from their own jurisdiction as well as from other departments.
For example, ATF should consider establishing protocols for entering images of multiple exhibits from the same gun, ideally involving various types of ammunition; currently, only a single exhibit is entered in some jurisdictions. The report also recommends several ways to improve the database's technical platform -- for example, by making it simpler to conduct searches across multiple regions of the country. In addition, we recommend more research on a possible future shift from using two-dimensional photographic techniques to using three-dimensional surface measurement techniques.
The following is a direct copy/paste from a well-known Gun Fact Website:
http://gunfacts.info/
Page 18 of the easily-viewable info pdf is a section specifically addressing the process of Ballistic Fingerprinting casings upon firing; with sources for support.
And if ballistic fingerprinting ever evolved to the point that it was actually reliable and could produce any useful data at all (it's a long way off), why would you, as a criminal, just use a revolver which retains it's spent casings after firing?
It's just a poorly planned, impractical, flashy buzz-program that gun-control advocates have gotten behind and openly supported before they even understood the process and it's weaknesses.
~LT
PS- I hope this copy-paste was conducted as per our policies. If not then I do appologize to the moderators.
http://gunfacts.info/
Page 18 of the easily-viewable info pdf is a section specifically addressing the process of Ballistic Fingerprinting casings upon firing; with sources for support.
And if ballistic fingerprinting ever evolved to the point that it was actually reliable and could produce any useful data at all (it's a long way off), why would you, as a criminal, just use a revolver which retains it's spent casings after firing?
It's just a poorly planned, impractical, flashy buzz-program that gun-control advocates have gotten behind and openly supported before they even understood the process and it's weaknesses.
~LT
PS- I hope this copy-paste was conducted as per our policies. If not then I do appologize to the moderators.
It also suddenly occurs to me... Are you speaking about Ballistic Fingerprinting or Ballistic Microstamping?
In Microstamping, the firing pin in a firearm is designed to imprint a serial number into the back of any cartridge it fires apparently making them distiguishable to a certain firearm.
This is also a terrible, expensive, and poorly-thought-out idea for many of the same reasons. For example, firing pins can be bought, made, swapped, and changed incredibly easily. These numbers can be filed off with no change to function. The stamping process doesn't even work legibly after only 10-20 rounds fired (many handguns with their factory firing pin will be fired hundreds of thousands, if not millions of times in their service). The stamping process and database registration and recording would mean an average of about a 40% increase in handgun cost. And most guns that are used to commit crimes are stolen, or unlawfully unregistered. What good would finding the original owner do toward solving the crime?
Most "campy" gun-control ideas are just terribly unreasonable and impractical when you apply ANY measure of common sense or ballistics knowledge to them.
~LT
(Reading on the matter)
NanoTagTM Markings From Another Perspective, George G. Krivosta, Suffolk County Crime Laboratory, Hauppauge, New York, Winter 2006 edition of the AFTE Journal
Etched bullets interest law enforcement, The Record, September 25, 2006
In Microstamping, the firing pin in a firearm is designed to imprint a serial number into the back of any cartridge it fires apparently making them distiguishable to a certain firearm.
This is also a terrible, expensive, and poorly-thought-out idea for many of the same reasons. For example, firing pins can be bought, made, swapped, and changed incredibly easily. These numbers can be filed off with no change to function. The stamping process doesn't even work legibly after only 10-20 rounds fired (many handguns with their factory firing pin will be fired hundreds of thousands, if not millions of times in their service). The stamping process and database registration and recording would mean an average of about a 40% increase in handgun cost. And most guns that are used to commit crimes are stolen, or unlawfully unregistered. What good would finding the original owner do toward solving the crime?
Most "campy" gun-control ideas are just terribly unreasonable and impractical when you apply ANY measure of common sense or ballistics knowledge to them.
~LT
(Reading on the matter)
NanoTagTM Markings From Another Perspective, George G. Krivosta, Suffolk County Crime Laboratory, Hauppauge, New York, Winter 2006 edition of the AFTE Journal
Etched bullets interest law enforcement, The Record, September 25, 2006
Uncle Buck
New member
Eclipse: If you are writing a paper on this subject, would you be so kind as to come back and post it once it is completed. It would be interesting to see your conclusions.
Eclipse:
Let's take one brand firearm, that manufactures Rifles, Pistols and shotguns..OK?
Thompson Center (not the only one to do this, but an example) has devised a system whereby you can purchase the "frame" or "Receiver" (the ATF legal part, that is, acrding to the ATF, the "receiver" is the firearm).
Now that you have a "firearm" with a serial number, (the receiver) you can purchase any number of barrels, firing pins, stocks, etc that will fit on this receiver, creating another totally different weapon.
A human analogy would be, if you could take a persons heart and transplant it at will into any number of "bodies". These bodies could be white, black, male, female, whatever you wanted....how would that help in identifying the original doner of that transplanted heart? Even the DNA would be different, let alone the "fingerprint"
Just like the long gun registration in Canada, micro stamping makes assumptions that just are not valid and wastes a lot of public money for no reasonable gain.
Let's take one brand firearm, that manufactures Rifles, Pistols and shotguns..OK?
Thompson Center (not the only one to do this, but an example) has devised a system whereby you can purchase the "frame" or "Receiver" (the ATF legal part, that is, acrding to the ATF, the "receiver" is the firearm).
Now that you have a "firearm" with a serial number, (the receiver) you can purchase any number of barrels, firing pins, stocks, etc that will fit on this receiver, creating another totally different weapon.
A human analogy would be, if you could take a persons heart and transplant it at will into any number of "bodies". These bodies could be white, black, male, female, whatever you wanted....how would that help in identifying the original doner of that transplanted heart? Even the DNA would be different, let alone the "fingerprint"
Just like the long gun registration in Canada, micro stamping makes assumptions that just are not valid and wastes a lot of public money for no reasonable gain.
Uncle Buck
New member
Eclipse: Some people have propose having the firing pin stamp the primer with a series of numbers/letters.
What would happen if you broke the firing pin? Would you have to go back to the manufacturer and have them make you another pin? I have made some firing pins myself. Would that now become illegal?
The idea of have the numbers somehow etched in the chamber of the gun, so when it is fired, the gun leaves a mark on the shell casing. Criminals would find a way to remove the mark.
Please keep in mind that criminals, by their very nature, are intent on breaking the law. They may not file the identifying numbers off the gun, but a nail and a hammer could mar the numbers very easily.
What would happen if you broke the firing pin? Would you have to go back to the manufacturer and have them make you another pin? I have made some firing pins myself. Would that now become illegal?
The idea of have the numbers somehow etched in the chamber of the gun, so when it is fired, the gun leaves a mark on the shell casing. Criminals would find a way to remove the mark.
Please keep in mind that criminals, by their very nature, are intent on breaking the law. They may not file the identifying numbers off the gun, but a nail and a hammer could mar the numbers very easily.
Uncle Buck
I will be glad to post my paper once I have finished, it should be done by the end of next week.
We are to make a presentation of it as well so the pictures and facts that people have been posting will do well to help me in this area. I thank everyone who has been posting within this thread, this will truly help me out a lot. So feel free to continue posting if you would like
Thank you,
Eclipse
I will be glad to post my paper once I have finished, it should be done by the end of next week.
We are to make a presentation of it as well so the pictures and facts that people have been posting will do well to help me in this area. I thank everyone who has been posting within this thread, this will truly help me out a lot. So feel free to continue posting if you would like
Thank you,
Eclipse
Don H
Don H: "Would biometric fingerprinting be of much use if fingerprints naturally changed over time or if people could alter their fingerprints at will?"
I just wanted to point out to you that people already do change their fingerprints at will. They do this by burning them off, using acid or other methods. Also the IBIS is not made to give you one direct hit, and nor is the Biometric Fingerprinting method. In fact the Biometric Fingerprinting method is used to give you several (or a pool of) hits, and then they are required to have Fingerprinting analysts to go over them, and determine which of the prints might be a plausible match. No fingerprint analysis will ever say that they are 100% sure that this print matches that, but most are usually only 80% or 85% sure of the matches.
But I do understand what you were trying to prove by your statements.
*Correction made: IBS --> IBIS
Don H: "Would biometric fingerprinting be of much use if fingerprints naturally changed over time or if people could alter their fingerprints at will?"
I just wanted to point out to you that people already do change their fingerprints at will. They do this by burning them off, using acid or other methods. Also the IBIS is not made to give you one direct hit, and nor is the Biometric Fingerprinting method. In fact the Biometric Fingerprinting method is used to give you several (or a pool of) hits, and then they are required to have Fingerprinting analysts to go over them, and determine which of the prints might be a plausible match. No fingerprint analysis will ever say that they are 100% sure that this print matches that, but most are usually only 80% or 85% sure of the matches.
But I do understand what you were trying to prove by your statements.
*Correction made: IBS --> IBIS
Eclipse,
I want to thank you for asking the members of this Forum for their (in many cases professional) opinion on the issue. As you see by the replies, those opinions range from legal, to technical, to practical and contain the wisdom of a great deal of experience with weapons.
(And as w/ much on this Forum, I learn something new every day. Case in point being the Nat'l Academies Study which advises against trying to rely upon "fingerprinting" in a pre-crime scenario.)
Unfortunately, both sides are emotionally wrapped around the problem: The Gun Nuts point to the Framers' deliberate distrust of/concern for a tyrannical government. The Gun Grabbers alternately point to an increasingly irresponsible plebiscite whose members cannot be trusted with the individual mandate of life and death decision.
You can guess where I come down. But that's after a long life watching this country -- both its gov't and its people -- change. I'd be interested what you finally find to be your own conclusion when the paper's done.
I want to thank you for asking the members of this Forum for their (in many cases professional) opinion on the issue. As you see by the replies, those opinions range from legal, to technical, to practical and contain the wisdom of a great deal of experience with weapons.
(And as w/ much on this Forum, I learn something new every day. Case in point being the Nat'l Academies Study which advises against trying to rely upon "fingerprinting" in a pre-crime scenario.)
Unfortunately, both sides are emotionally wrapped around the problem: The Gun Nuts point to the Framers' deliberate distrust of/concern for a tyrannical government. The Gun Grabbers alternately point to an increasingly irresponsible plebiscite whose members cannot be trusted with the individual mandate of life and death decision.
You can guess where I come down. But that's after a long life watching this country -- both its gov't and its people -- change. I'd be interested what you finally find to be your own conclusion when the paper's done.
NJgunowner
New member
If you were intent on committing a crime and the shell casings were marked somehow, you'd just use a catcher where they eject... or a revolver.
ConlawBloganon
New member
I'll be interested to read the paper when it comes out. In the meantime, keep your hands off my guns.
Well the easy way to put it would be what if 98% of the samples you had on file from guns was never used in a crime? How much does it cost to compare a ballistic sample only to not have it not match with anything in your sample base if it was from a gun that were made before this became mandatory.
Can you imagine all the taxpayer money spent for little or no results.
Not to mention all the start up money to set it up and them maintain it.
another anti gun scam revealed.
Can you imagine all the taxpayer money spent for little or no results.
Not to mention all the start up money to set it up and them maintain it.
another anti gun scam revealed.
So lets say an assassination was carried out. The sniper was at such a range that he got away without anyone seeing his rifle or himself, and he used a brass catcher on his rifle, lets say that is an M24. But the bullet was retrieved from his victim. Could they tell if it was fired from an M24?
Not sure if this is a valid argument. It pre-supposes that crimes committed with firearms are pre-planned. iirc the majority of crimes are committed in hot blood and criminals are not generally Professor Moriarty.
Government does investigate people because of their speech and or religion. Free speech zones are actively used to silence free speech. Religious profiling exists right along side racial.
imho the only serious argument is that such a law would be ineffective and costly.
Even that might not be enough of a bar because we already have many laws that are ineffective and costly.