Slashdot Mirror
Building a Comprehensive Ballistics Database?
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?
Everyone so far has pointed out that the characteristics of a gun barrel change over time. This is true, and it would mean that eventually the markings might change enough to make a "fingerprint" useless.
However, you can readily buy replacement barrels for most rifles anyway. So you could handily buy a weapon and register it, and then swap out the barrel, use the weapon in a crime, and then change it back. Obviously this would take planning and a minor amount of skill (it's really not hard to take apart assault rifles -- remember, they are designed to be taken apart and cleaned in the field by unsophisticated soldiers). The D.C. killer is obviously skilled enough to accomplish this.
Bullet fingerprinting is still an idea that does have its merits, but don't let anyone fool you that such laws would be in any way helpful in catching the current D.C. area serial killer.
If you embedded an RF tag into each registered gun, and then imaged a fired casing, connecting both in a database with the gun buyer (not necessarily owner),I think we could get past the gun-rights issue.
Of course you'd step right into a right to privacy issue...(see Amendment, 5th)
The opposite of progress is congress
It's my understanding that the markings left on both the shell casing and the spent round are more like DNA matching (ie: I'm 99% sure it's this person, I'm 100% sure it's NOT the other person) and less like fingerprints (I'm 100% sure, both ways)
Additionally, did anyone notice something odd about the latest killing? The police said that they linked the killing at the home depot to the other string using ballistic evidence, but they said the killer may have used a different rifle? Maybe the media is oversimplifying here, but how can you link a killing to a string of other killings ballistically if it's a different gun?
There is also the issue of frangible ammo (such as Sinterfire), which you will be seeing ALOT more of in the future. This type of ammo turns to dust on impact, and as such there is not ballistic fingerprint on the bullet because there is no bullet. The beauty of this type of ammo is that there is no back splatter, ricochet or over penetration worries. Also the bullet delivers nearly 100% of its energy into the target making the shot that much more effective at "stopping the action" which is what most police agencies are trained to do. There is also no lead, which is a big worry for shooting ranges now a days.
Unlike fingerprinting a person, taking a "fingerprint" of a shell casing is very dependent on the exact setup of the light source. Small variations can just about eliminate the chance of making a match. In fact, there is more than 1 company competing to convince the government to use their fingerprinting system and guess what? Images from 1 system cannot be matched against images from another system. So right away you have a currently unsolved practical problem which the proponents of fingerprinting wish to ignore.
As to the poster who asked how a ballistics match could be made if the shooter used a different gun, I would guess that they would be talking about the bullet, casing, and powder residue suggesting that the round came from the same batch as the others. While not as conclusive as casing or bullet markings, it's not likely that 2 independent murders would involve the same batch of ammunition.
Please understand that nothing I say is meant to demean or insult you. I enjoy a quality discussion with someone of an opposing vie.
:
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)
About 582,000 of these reported murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults were committed with firearms.
Individuals use guns as often as 2.5 million times per year to protect themselves. 90% of the time only brandishing the gun to deter the crime.
- Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law (Fall 1995), vol. 1, pp. 173, 185. (Specific issue is not online.)
The second ammendment clearly points to the need to regulate guns
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I assume you are refering to the "regulated" in regulated Militia. Your interrpritation is wrong. Madison makes it clear in the Federalist Papers that a well regulated militia is refering to a chain of command that the state would set up to manage the militia for the common defense. But he also makes it clear that the people will have the right to keep their own arms and that maintaining the militia under state control indefinatly is impossible and should not be attempted.
fingerprinting doesn't mean you would always know who currently has the gun or their address, just someplace to start.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fingerprinting you or your firearm is a violation of the 4th amendment. Its as simple as that.
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.
"There are approximately 654,600 officers employed to provide law enforcement services to approximately 265 million of the nation's inhabitants, an average of only 2.5 officers for every 1,000 individuals. This statistic, of course, does not reflect the average number of officers actively deployed or on duty during a particular shift. So face it -- self-defense is your job!" - Quoted from The Armerican Liberty Foundation - Statistics from
Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States (1998)," p. 291.
Your comment suggests a lack of respect for those who do this very difficult job.
Thats simply not true I have quite a large respect for police officers and infact have many friends who are employed as such. I simply do not fool myself into believing that they will be there when I need them. And instead realize that this is the land of the free and home of the brave. You can not have one without the other.
You make it sound like making a 'citizens arrest' is an easy thing.
I never said it would be easy. I stated that using a firearm was easy. Any police officer who has drawn his weapon in the line of duty will tell you its the most stressful situation imaginable. But defending our freedoms is not about voting and watching CNN its about the willingness to lay down your life for what you believe is right. You state that you would, given the choice, use your car to stop this sniper instead of a gun. I say that I would gladly stand between you, your wife, your child and any of your family with a weapon and be willing to die to protect you from him because I believe that stoping this sicko is more important than my life if it means stopping him from shooting someone elses loved one. When you accept and realize that life in America is not about your ablity to shop at Micky Dee's and Walmart, and is instead about eternal vigilance you will see that taking the steps needed to feel confident carrying and using a firearm should be your first concern so that you children and theirs can live in a free country too.
If anyone ask me to fire my Civil War-circa U.S. Grand Army Republic Colt revolver, they'll face several problems:
1. I don't have any bullet for this antique anymore
2. The revolver barrel just MIGHT explode this time (and reduce the value by $12000)
3. They gotta pry it from my cold dead hand!
Actually, I expect that states like Nebraska COULD. I mean, sure. There's lots of agriculture in Nebraska, but Omaha didn't get put on MSN's "Top Ten Little-Known Tech Havens" list last year for cow-raising.
Corn Fields and I.T. are not mutually exclusive. I should know - I live two blocks away from a corn field and I write code for a living.
-V
... "I read part of it all the way through." -- Movie Mogul Sam Goldwyn (and some slashdot readers)