Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Building a Comprehensive Ballistics Database?

Posted by Cliff on from the touching-on-current-events dept.

Linuxathome asks: "I'm a resident in the Washington DC-Baltimore Metropolitan area. If you've kept up with the news lately, you've probably have heard about the serial killings. I realize that this question may spark a political debate, but my question pertains to current technology. The gun law debate has been recently re-ignited. And the hot topic of current is in regards to fingerprinting firearms. Gun rights supporters argue that the technology behind fingerprinting is not reliable (see John Dingell). Dingell estimates there are approximately 50 million gun owners in the US (I don't have estimates of how many guns are out there). Is an image database of 50 million spent casings not feasible?" What issues, both technical and political, would there be surrounding the creation (and the current hold up) of such a database?

14 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. Criminals will get unregistered guns..... by jsimon12 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Regardless of reliability of the method (the main issue is you simply replace the barrel and/or firing pin and you have a different print) the fact remains that criminals will simply need to get unregistered or stolen firearms to circumvent the system. So what is the point in spending millions if not billions to register all the guns if it will only help in a very small percentage of the cases?

    1. Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... by Tip · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly what keeps someone from scratching or polishing the barrel of their gun? Or steal someone elses? I don't believe this is the answer, I also don't believe gun control is the answer. Anyone can find ways to disrupt society with or without guns.

    2. Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... by sql*kitten · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The constitution gives you the right to own guns. It does not give you the right to own them anonymously.

      The only reason that the Constitution does not include things like privacy and anonymity is that these things simply were not problems back then. Want to have a private conversation? Walk out into the middle of a field, and just talk. Want to be anonymous? Move to the next state over and just start using a different name. Enshrining privacy and anonymity simply would not have occured to the Founding Fathers, because they could not imagine a situation in which the government would ever be in a position to deny them to its citizens.

      The closest thing to what you want is the 4th Amendment.

    3. Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... by Gerry+Gleason · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I seriously doubt that the framers would have supported this extreme view of the right to privacy. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big supporter of privacy rights, particularly in the context of making it possible for you to become the target of an investigation based on a match in a database.

      For me, fingerprinting a firearm is a lot different that fingerprinting a person, although the dangers of a big national DB of either has similar risks. It is interesting how this is playing out in Congress. A lot of them are just realizing now that they actually live in an urban environment, and they and their families are just as much in the line-of-fire as the rest of the community. A lot of times gun control issue split along urban/rural lines.

      The point is to ask whether the situation would be better if a lot of people in the DC suburbs carried firearms. Unless they are all well trained and not hot-heads, I think everyone is safer with the police chasing the criminals. What would/could you do if you saw this guy fire his gun? I know I'd have a lot better odds stopping him with my '88 Crown Vic than a handgun.

    4. Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... by Gerry+Gleason · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'm not going to continue a back and forth about gun control in general, but I'd like to address a couple of points.

      I am concerned about the similarity (you chose not to quote that part), but guns are actually used in crimes quite a lot (let's not get into whether a gun owner is more or less likely to commit a crime). The point is that if a gun is used, it is by definition a serious and violent crime (even if just a threat). The second ammendment clearly points to the need to regulate guns, and fingerprinting doesn't mean you would always know who currently has the gun or their address, just someplace to start.

      I know about the studies about concealed carry, but I still don't want this to be common, and particularly not without mandatory training and licensing.

      No cops aren't required to protect you, but most of them are good people who are very interested in serving their community. There just aren't (nor do I want there to be) enough of them to be everywhere. Most of them would not hesitate to put their lives on the line to stop this guy, and they are well trained not to endanger the rest of us while they are doing it. Your comment suggests a lack of respect for those who do this very difficult job.

      No, I would trust myself with a gun, I just have little or no interest in carrying one. I have fired guns, and I'm a pretty good shot within limitations. You make it sound like making a 'citizens arrest' is an easy thing. It's not, and unless you know yourself and how you will react pretty well, I would not recommend it. At the right angle, I'm pretty sure I could disable his van and still be able to drive away with my 4000+ pound car, and I think he would be caught pretty quickly. Of course, all of this is stupid hypotheticals, because nobody really knows how they would react in the situation.

  2. couple issues by ceejayoz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One issue with a ballistics database is that the characteristics of a gun barrel change with every shot. After a couple hundred shots it might have changed enough to make enough of a difference for the computer to fail to make a match.

    I imagine it'd be possible to change the barrel's fingerprint by scouring the inside of the barrel (say with steel wool). The barrel could also be swapped out completely...

  3. why fingerprinting doesn't work by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fingerprinting the bullets won't work, even considering the noraml wear of the barrel, because with a small amount of work you can completely change the way the barrel makes marks on the bullet.

    Fingerprinting the marks on the brass cartridges is even worse; not only can that be changed, but if you shoot your gun at a public range, anyone could grab a case you've left behind and frame you with it, taking attention away from themselves.

    I think it's New Jersey that's instituted a program for fingerprinting the cartridge cases; they've spent a godawful amount of money on the program, and the end result has been no useful information towards making arrests.

  4. who pays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Who pays for something like this?

    Does a place like Nebraska or Iowa or any other agriculturely centered state have the capability of setting this up?

    What of all the guns that are already purchased?

    Are you going to charge for it, wrt existing legally owned guns?

    Who does this? ATF or FBI?

    What is the timeline?

    Where do the guns go to be tested?

    Are they to be re-tested as they barrels age?

  5. A note about collectors by tchuladdiass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If your are going to require current gun owners to register their casings, then that will require that the gun be fired. There are many collectors who have prized mint-condition firearms, never been fired. These can be worth multiple thousands of dollars. As soon as you fire the first round, it will drop the value significantly. Also, what do you do about guns that are in a collection but aren't in working order?

  6. What about building you own by Gigs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This doesn't address the issue that its fairly easy to build a firearm either. Take Bill Holmes line of books. With a lathe and a milling machine you can produce a firearm in as little as a day or two.

    Once again this is a knee-jerk reaction. This person or persons has commited a crime, and when caught will be punished for it. Thinking that any law would have prevented this is illogical and flat out wrong. You can make anything a crime but that doesn't mean its going to stop anyone from doing it. What it does is create a police state where everyone is a criminal and as such can be controlled.

  7. Modify a firearm? by jsimon12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course, if you re-bore your barrel, that might sidestep the issue. How difficult is that maneuver and does it ruin the usefulness/accuracy of the gun?

    Any half wit backwoods gunsmith can rebore a barrel and still have a reasonably accurate gun. The issue is we aren't dealing with high end equipment, guns have been around for hundreds upon hud reds of years and the tech to build and maintain them is relatively low. So anything that relies on a physical aspect of the firearm can be modified, and hence the system circumvented, by ANYONE with a small machine shop (ie tools in their garage).

  8. The problem by bwt · · Score: 3, Insightful


    In order to get a conviction you must make the following links:
    1) bullet to gun
    2) gun to perpatrator

    The hard part is #2. The gun's rightful owner is generally not the perp. (You know that, right?). Even if you could comprehensively backpopulate all 50 million existing guns to their fingerprint, you would acheive nothing.

    For example, after the first shooting we have the fingerprint of this gun. We know that the following shootings were done by the same gun. We do not have an arrest. WHY? Because it is step 2 that is hard.

    Of course, attempts to make a database of existing guns will fail utterly. I think the 30 million NRA members will probably interpret your request for a bullet sample a little differently that you.

  9. What would you say if... by Phleg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The police kept a fingerprint database. However, imagine that after time, your fingerprint changes and wears down over time, and it's even possible to change it entirely. This is the main problem with a law requiring ballistic fingerprinting. It's not reliable. As more and more bullets are fired, the fingerprint of the gun barrel actually changes. Not to mention, if one wanted, you could either scratch the inside of the barrel to completely change it, or you could simply replace the barrel entirely, with one that's undocumented. And even worse, this would only inconvenience those who intend on following the law. Noone going on a murderous rampage is going to listen to laws saying he's got to register a gun, or submit it for ballistic fingerprinting. Once again, those who want weapons for legitimate reasons get hassled because of those who don't.

    --
    No comment.
  10. Great idea! by DmitriA · · Score: 4, Insightful


    And while we are it, for the noble cause of solving crime, why don't we fingerprint not only guns, but also fingers/hands of every person in the country. After all, criminals may leave fingerprints at crime scenes and that will allow us to easily identify and locate those criminals. And let's not forget about collecting the DNA information too. That would be wonderful for solving all those rapes and whatnot.

    So, all you gun control nuts - see anything wrong with this picture?