"Ballistic Fingerprinting" advocates follow emotion, not reason.

Article published Nov 15, 2002 'Ballistic fingerprinting' advocates follow emotion, not reason

With the advent of the "Beltway Sniper" shootings, there has been the predictable hue and cry for more gun control, mostly in the form of a "ballistic fingerprinting database" for all firearms. Simply put, the idea is that bullets recovered from shootings could be matched to images stored in a computer, the owner of the weapon could then be determined and an arrest could be made. Sounds good, doesn't it? Unfortunately, in the real world, it doesn't work. The federal government has been working on such a system for a decade. Since 1999, its advocates like to proclaim, it's made more than 12,000 matches. But it has yielded no convictions.

Why? Because the "fingerprints" are nowhere near distinct enough to provide matches that are truly viable as evidence. Maryland has had a similar system in use for the last two years. Number of convictions: zero. California has reviewed the feasibility of this idea and deemed it "unworkable." The term "fingerprint" is a deliberate misnomer. Real fingerprints cannot be changed. A firearm's working parts can all be altered in five minutes with tools commonly found in any garage.

Don't think that criminals don't know this; they most certainly do. Even normal use will change the "fingerprint" in time.

"Ballistic fingerprinting" is just a facade for what is truly desired by its advocates: a national gun registry. A list of every gun owner in the United States, where they live and what firearms they possess. This is hardly a concept befitting a nation that professes to be "the land of the free." Who would even want such a thing? Need you ask? The voices that have immediately sought to capitalize on this tragedy are the same ones who attempt to use every abuse of firearms to further their goal of restricting guns or banning them outright. These include Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in the U.S. Senate, the appointed bureaucrats of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and such groups as the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center, among others.

Even so, is a national firearms registry a bad thing? Absolutely. Why? Because all registration schemes lead to eventual confiscation. This is readily verifiable. This inevitable progression is ongoing in Britain and Australia. In the 20th century, it preceded much of the conflict in Europe and Asia.

Those who say "it can't happen here" are whistling past the graveyard of history. It's simply not worth the risk.

Thankfully, the truth of this is obvious to many, and is the primary reason why "ballistic fingerprinting" proposals have gone nowhere. The whole scheme violates the Second, Fourth, Fifth and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, as well as the concept of prior restraint and the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws. We still live in a nation where people are considered innocent until proven guilty.

If the police have probable cause to suspect our involvement in a crime, they have the right to fingerprint us, take a DNA sample or check the ballistic identification of our guns. If they don't have probable cause, they don't. It's that simple. Of all the articles in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is the one that specifically states "shall not be infringed," but is, ironically, the most infringed upon. Any honest man could simply look up the word "infringe" in the dictionary and go from there. Over 20,000 laws now hinder this fundamental human right -- the right to self-defense.

We human beings, for all our technology and civilization, are creatures who still feel more quickly and more strongly than we think. The heart betrays the mind; gun control is primarily an illogical response to fear. Impelled by the need to "do something," we are misled into actions that do more harm than good. The truth is that no law is better than a bad law, and knee- jerk concepts like "ballistic fingerprinting" are bad law.

Every time a crime is committed involving firearms, there invariably follows the usual demands that we surrender even more of our freedoms, all for a false promise of safety that politicians know can never be delivered. It is a siren call that rational, thinking people cannot, will not heed.

This guy beat me to it. Saved me a lot of work putting together a coherent argument against the fallacy of "ballistic fingerprinting". Because there isn't any such thing. The "Fingerprint" people are touting in reference to firearms is crap, because it implies that the ballistic signature of a firearm is a "fingerprint" in that it cannot change. This is an IMPLIED LIE because the ballistic signature of a firearm CHANGES ALL BY ITSELF with use and wear, and CAN BE CHANGED intentionally by those with barely any know how and a rat-tail file.

It's another scam to get us to register our guns folks. Wonder why they're pushing so hard? Did all the drama of confiscating AR-15's in Maryland do ONE BIT of good in catching the killer?

NO, it didn't. All it did was reveal the FBI for what it is: A politically motivated strong arm for a totalitarian agenda. Period.

Enjoy what little freedom you have left, my friends. The water's about hot enough, I think.

The term "fingerprint" is a deliberate misnomer. Real fingerprints cannot be changed. A firearm's working parts can all be altered in five minutes with tools commonly found in any garage. Don't think that criminals don't know this; they most certainly do. Even normal use will change the "fingerprint" in time.

And Schuuuuuuumer knows this; but we already know he's a liar.

Yeah, but lots of idiots believe everything they read.

Someone actually told me recently that only the police should have firearms. I said, what a world -- criminals and cops would have guns and the rest of us would be at their mercy. She said the criminals would have to turn in their guns too, and the police would protect us from those who don't because that's their job. Don't I know it's written on the police cars, "to protect and serve"?

The rest of our discussion continued along those lines. I was flabbergasted.

There are lots of folks out there who do not use their brains or who have the brains originally meant for geese. Facts and constitutional rights don't mean a thing to them.

nice to see you here!

Likewise. When I'm not busy with elections and wrestling with the local leftmedia, I actually do get to go out to the range once in a while and stay in practice. Between work, home, wife and kids, it's not as often as I'd like!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.