Replies

The idea that a gun used in a crime is tracable to the crime is mostly television hype. Connecticut and New York both spent many millions of dollars building databases with spent cartridge cases from guns sold in those states.

Neither state ever solved a single crime by the use of those data bases.

Both states eventually did away with their “gun fingerprint” data bases because they were so ineffective and costly.

Very, very rarely, a gun might be tied to a crime scene by ammunition. It usually goes like this:

The police find evidence of a type of ammunition at the crime scene, say, Remington 115 grain 9X19 cartridges using jacketed hollowpoint bullets.

They arrest a suspect. The suspect has the same ammunition in his possession. They tell the suspect that they can tie the ammunition and gun to him.

The suspect confesses.

That is how guns are actually tied to crime scenes.

The idea that a gun used in a crime is tracable to the crime is mostly television hype. Connecticut and New York both spent many millions of dollars building databases with spent cartridge cases from guns sold in those states.

Useful information.

I guess I can keep my weapon after all!!

.

;)

Connecticut and New York both spent many millions of dollars building databases with spent cartridge cases from guns sold in those states.

Are you ignoring Maryland? I want recognition for our wasteful spending too. We may be small, but we're world-class when it comes to liberal waste and anti-gun nonsense.

Millions of dollars later, Maryland has officially decided that its 15-year effort to store and catalog the "fingerprints" of thousands of handguns was a failure . . . the system . . . never solved a single case