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?

13 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 Gigs · · Score: 4, Informative

      I seriously doubt that the framers would have supported this extreme view of the right to privacy.

      Read the federalist papers. This exactly the type of privacy they had in mind. Do you know why the first battle of the revolution happened? The british came to confiscate arms and ball ammo.

      For me, fingerprinting a firearm is a lot different that fingerprinting a person

      For me its not any different. It gives the government a list of who has what guns and makes it that much easier to confiscate them. The idea of the second amendment is to protect me from just such an occurance.

      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...


      Yes that is the question and every study thats been done proves that crime rates fall when concealed carry laws are enacted. Yes training is important and I encourage anyone who carries to seek training and to maintain that training. But it is not a requirement. Using a weapon is not difficult. Identify you target assest the danger and engage or flee.

      I think everyone is safer with the police chasing the criminals.

      The police do not have to duty to protect you! Period!!!
      This has been addressed numerous times in court. See this study.

      What would/could you do if you saw this guy fire his gun?

      How about performing a citizens arrest. With out a gun you are (pardon the pun) out gunned. But with a weapon you could confront and control the suspect.

      I know I'd have a lot better odds stopping him with my '88 Crown Vic than a handgun

      This is the same view most of the gun control advocates have. Just because you don't trust yourself with a firearm does not mean you can not trust me. And if you can not trust me you should have a gun of your own so that you can control me should I overreact to a situation in which you are involved.

    4. Re:Criminals will get unregistered guns..... by Gigs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  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. 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?

  5. Replacement Barrels by Phaid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  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. Frangible Ammo by Gigs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  9. 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?