File 'em off:
Take 'em with you:
Or pick up range brass:
Posted on 03/05/2008 9:44:39 PM PST by neverdem
A national database containing images of ballistic markings from all new and imported guns sold in the U.S. should not be created at this time, says a new report from the National Research Council. The report recommends improvements to an existing database of crime-related ballistic evidence and urges further research on "microstamping."
Full Report (FReebie!)
Anti-Gunners Launching Full-Scale Attack in Connecticut!
CT wants registered sales of ammo with serial numbers and "microstamping" for semi-automatic handguns. Good timing!
One major problem with ballistics imaging is that there is an enormous difference in the probative power of a ‘cold match’ versus a ‘hot match’. If one in 100,000 pistols will match a particular bullet, and a person who would be strongly suspected for other reasons has a matching firearm, the matching firearm is additional evidence. On the other hand, if the government doesn’t have any idea who did the crime, the fact that in a database of 150,000 ballistic images some random shmuck’s firearm happens to match the crime scene bullet shouldn’t be taken to mean much. Doesn’t mean the government won’t try to nail the poor shmuck anyway, though.
File 'em off:
Take 'em with you:
Or pick up range brass:
Another major problem is that there is no logical classification system for bullets or cases, as exists with fingerprints. And even fingerprints are a "black art" with lots of opportunities for experts to disagree.
Each fingerprint has to be identified as to hand, finger, type, and a number of check points. This is used to generate a long number, much like a soundex, that is then searchable. But a single finger print may produce thousands of hits for fingers that are "close enough" to get the same number.
You need more fingers (unless they have a suspect), so fingerprint techs try to get prints of all ten fingers. Even then, there may be several sets of prints in FBI files that have the same classification. Then it comes down to debating the results with other experts, or eliminating suspects.
There is none of this going for "ballistic images", because there is no natural grouping of unchanging characteristics. With a pristine bullet or case, you might narrow it down to make, model, and possibly year of manufacture. But there are still thousands of candidates, and everything else is a case-by-case slog.
"Ballistic identification" computer systems are just storage systems of photographs, because it's so darn hard to preserve the physical bullet or case. Fingerprints can be stored on cards, bullets need little boxes. A high-quality image makes it easier to store and share, but does nothing to solve the underlying problem.
It would make more sense to catalog snow flakes.
>>Doesn’t mean the government won’t try to nail the poor shmuck anyway, though.
As anyone paying attention should have learned from the Duke lacrosse political prosecutions, to cite a recent example of that. Lack of real evidence doesn’t stop a politically motivated prosecutor.
We also urge further research on microstamping, a promising alternative to creating a national ballistic database that has been legislated in California and is pending in Congress. This technique places a unique identifier -- such as an alphanumeric code -- on gun parts or ammunition, and it would have the formidable advantage of imposing uniqueness on ballistic evidence. However, studies have not yet determined how durable microstamped marks are under various firing conditions, how susceptible they are to tampering, or what their cost would be for manufacturers and consumers. We strongly encourage research on these and other issues related to microstamping, as this method may indeed be a viable future approach to firearms investigation.
Is that one gal wearing sandals? Bad mojo in a place where falling brass might singe a toe...
They ARE only supporting "microstamping" research.
"We also urge further research on microstamping, a promising alternative to creating a national ballistic database that has been legislated in California and is pending in Congress. This technique places a unique identifier -- such as an alphanumeric code -- on gun parts or ammunition, and it would have the formidable advantage of imposing uniqueness on ballistic evidence. However, studies have not yet determined how durable microstamped marks are under various firing conditions, how susceptible they are to tampering, or what their cost would be for manufacturers and consumers. We strongly encourage research on these and other issues related to microstamping, as this method may indeed be a viable future approach to firearms investigation."
It's not ready for prime time for many of the same reasons that ballistic imaging never will be ready. A microstamp toolmark is subject to degradation as any toolmark, just for starters. Then there are wheelguns and tampering, not to mention the cost off the top of my head. I didn't have any coffee yet.
Thanks for the link.
It shouldn’t be created at all.
I’ve had some hot brass go down the back of my shirt once or twice.
I had a .223 case get stuck between my shooting glasses and my temple once. That was when I went out and bought a brass catcher for it.
I don’t even want to know what that felt like.
It got my attention. Luckily, I had the presence of mind to NOT wave the rifle around while trying to unstick the brass from the side of my head.
I have used the same model revolver for almost 40 years, a Model 36 S&W. Not once has it tried to burn me. Now my Benelli 12 guage, that is a horse of a different color. Tilt it the wrong way and it’ll eject a casing that will ricochet off the closest wall and come right back at ya.
Not that rascally pair of AR's or that evil little Taurus 92AF. Their are just downright mean...
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.