• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Maryland scraps gun "fingerprint" database after 15 failed years

Go to the range and collect a handful of brass and scatter it around the crime scene while capturing your own brass would be a great way to confuse the situation as well
Seems like I read somewhere that this has actually has happened. Criminal "salts" crime scene with bogus casings.
 
it doesn't make any sense. that is because the gun banners pretend that their real goal is controlling criminals when in reality its about limiting honest people from having guns

I agree with you. The quotes:

The root of the problem is gun manufacturers, not necessarily gun owners.

The problem of having more guns than we need.

Not only responsible people are buying them, hence why they are the problem. More sales is better for them, they don't care who they sell to.

No, that's a FACT. Too many people have access to guns that should not have them. You actually disagree with that??
It related to the OP because this is why databases will not work

Seems to be no substance, no facts, not even well stated opinions.

I'm going with your line of reasoning. "Gun banners pretend"
 
I agree with you. The quotes:

The root of the problem is gun manufacturers, not necessarily gun owners.

The problem of having more guns than we need.

Not only responsible people are buying them, hence why they are the problem. More sales is better for them, they don't care who they sell to.

No, that's a FACT. Too many people have access to guns that should not have them. You actually disagree with that??
It related to the OP because this is why databases will not work

Seems to be no substance, no facts, not even well stated opinions.

I'm going with your line of reasoning. "Gun banners pretend"

most of the people pushing for gun bans push laws that only impact lawful gun owners. suggesting that their real goal is harassing lawful gun owners

how do I know-easy

legally owned machine guns have no history of criminal misuse. gun banners attached a ban to a popular gun owners' protection bill in an attempt to derail it. crime control was not the basis of that ban, rather spite

magazine limits-criminals can own no gun legally. whether it holds 2 rounds or 50. a magazine limit thus only restricts what lawful gun owners can do

registration-criminals cannot be prosecuted for failing to register guns.

Semi auto bans-once again criminals can own or possess NO guns legally

waiting periods, how many guns you can buy a month etc-only apply to people who can legally buy guns.

so what is your point?
 
most of the people pushing for gun bans push laws that only impact lawful gun owners. suggesting that their real goal is harassing lawful gun owners

how do I know-easy

legally owned machine guns have no history of criminal misuse. gun banners attached a ban to a popular gun owners' protection bill in an attempt to derail it. crime control was not the basis of that ban, rather spite

magazine limits-criminals can own no gun legally. whether it holds 2 rounds or 50. a magazine limit thus only restricts what lawful gun owners can do

registration-criminals cannot be prosecuted for failing to register guns.

Semi auto bans-once again criminals can own or possess NO guns legally

waiting periods, how many guns you can buy a month etc-only apply to people who can legally buy guns.

so what is your point?

Not my point. Those are the shadowless quotes in total in this thread.
 
Not my point. Those are the shadowless quotes in total in this thread.

don't be coy, tell me what your point is
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065235700 said:

Ok by me!:thumbs:

When it comes to common sense on the gun issue, I meet very few liberals who display it.

The root of the problem is gun manufacturers, not necessarily gun owners.

What problem?

That was my question too.

The problem of having more guns than we need.

We can never have too many guns. And who are you to judge anyone's ..."need"?

Not only responsible people are buying them, hence why they are the problem. More sales is better for them, they don't care who they sell to.

Neither does GM, Ford, Fiat/Chrysler, Mercedes...and especially VW! Too funny Shadow...
 
It was designed to fail and it seems to me to be, in effect, registration. It definitely wasn't "worth a try" for 15 yrs. One, maybe.

I agree.

It was registration of a bullet "fingerprint". Not a registration of who owned what. AFAIK no database was kept on who bought the bullets. As such, nothing wrong with it from a Rights point of view.

As for it being designed to fail...doubt that very seriously.

Still...15 years of a failed policy.......and it took them this long to decide? And how much did this cost the taxpayers?
 
No, that's a FACT. Too many people have access to guns that should not have them. You actually disagree with that??

It related to the OP because this is why databases will not work.

I don't disagree with that.....what I do disagree with is that any law will stop criminals from getting guns. It Doesn't!

Almost every gun law that is designed to stop criminals from getting guns, in actuality, only penalizes the honest citizen with a crap load of restrictive, stupid laws.

WHY is that so hard for you libs to understand????

Of course it's designed to fail. That "finger print" can be easily changed. Having said that, I haven't read about it in a few days, I was under the impression that spent casings were sent and if this is the case, when gun is bought at the dealer the casing and therefore the gun is matched to the buyer. Defacto registration.

Yep!!!

its the same as saying no one needs golf clubs because I don't play golf

Yep. Ain't it great how libs are all for tolerance.......until they aren't...

They have no problem with Johnny doing Johnny......or dope being legalized or kids having sex with kids.....but insert a gun into the mix and they go out of their ****ing trees!!
 
In order to do such a gun must be re-bored last I knew. Not everyone knows how to do that.

Except of course that the gun is not tracked to a buyer. Nor can it possibly be linked to several buyers over a period of time.

All the more reason for the good guys to build their own, from 80% lowers, with no serial number.

Currently a guy can build an AR10 or 15, AKs and 1911.....at home or in his shop.

I do love Free enterprise and Capitalism!
 
the sad thing is all the banoid solutions to this alleged problem have the impact of disarming good people and doing nothing to take guns away from criminals. Which of course is the real goal of the banoid movement


Absolutely!!!!!
 
How many do we need?

No more than Jack Daniels does ñot care if drunk drivers or date rapists buy their product. Pretty goofy.

:applaud:applaud

Actually the ballistic fingerprint changes the more times the gun is fired, due to constant heat from combustion and metal fatigue. When ballistic fingerprinting was first thought up, it was argued then how it would be useless unless someone bought a gun then immediately used it in a murder.

if you take a ballistic fingerprint of a new rifle then compare it with the same rifle 3000 rounds later, the fingerprint will not be the same, though it may be close, it is like human fingerprints, close can not be used when an exact match is needed.

And....................................fingerprints get damaged....and do wear out over time. Most people in their 70s and beyond have little to no discernible prints. I know that for a fact.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065236342 said:
How could a program like that be successful? It had no chance from the start to be effective. It makes me think of "feel good" gun control.

That is what ALL liberal gun laws are about.....a "Feel Good" policy....just like a Gun Free Zone! Biggest conjob on the American people, in modern times!

Go to the range and collect a handful of brass and scatter it around the crime scene while capturing your own brass would be a great way to confuse the situation as well

Pure genius! Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
 
Technically ballistic fingerprinting is measuring and the micro level barrel imprints on the bullet, what maryland is doing is not ballistic fingerprinting, it is shell fingerprinting, which is even more stupid because firing pins do break, and replacements are easy to buy, or even slightly file down.

Changing barrels and firing pins on say...a 1911.........is a an easy process. I know many folks with numerous spares on hand....;)
 
I'm not clear as to your meaning. Are you claiming that manufacturers deliberately produce more guns than the market can absorb? And because of this the bad guys have better access. How does that work?

It works just fine.......................in the mush for brains, liberal mind!
It only works in Never, Never Land, where the Peter Pan banoids were created.

it doesn't make any sense. that is because the gun banners pretend that their real goal is controlling criminals when in reality its about limiting honest people from having guns

Everytime!!!

Seems like I read somewhere that this has actually has happened. Criminal "salts" crime scene with bogus casings.

BreeeeeeT............................:lamo

I agree with you. The quotes:

The root of the problem is gun manufacturers, not necessarily gun owners.

The problem of having more guns than we need.

Not only responsible people are buying them, hence why they are the problem. More sales is better for them, they don't care who they sell to.

No, that's a FACT. Too many people have access to guns that should not have them. You actually disagree with that??
It related to the OP because this is why databases will not work

Seems to be no substance, no facts, not even well stated opinions.

I'm going with your line of reasoning. "Gun banners pretend"

They have to pretend....most of them never owned a gun and know little about them. They don't hunt, target practice, or want to even defend themselves.
They all know that the police will be there to protect them....Baaa-Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
 
Last edited:
Not my point. Those are the shadowless quotes in total in this thread.

I got that.....and Shadowless................drifted into the shadows, with nary a wimper.
 
The problem of having more guns than we need.

Don't be silly the problem is having all the guns in criminals and governments hands. How many anyone or what we need is of no relevance.
 
Not only responsible people are buying them, hence why they are the problem. More sales is better for them, they don't care who they sell to.

Do I detect a note of fear here?

Do you have any evidence that firearm owners are any more irresponsible than the public? ie are you holding them to a higher level of responsibility than what should be expected? Or are you just parroting gun control propaganda?

That should be easy for you to answer.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065235700 said:

I don't see it as a gun control effort at all, but a valid idea for building a database that traces guns used in crimes to their source.

What you left out of your source article were two important paragraphs:

But the computerized system designed to sort and match the images never worked as envisioned.

That alone tells you that the failure was software problem, not an idea problem.

The science behind the system is valid. The scratches etched onto a casing can be matched to the gun that fired it, mapping a so-called fingerprint to the gun. The Maryland system was an expanded version of the successful but more limited federal National Integrated Ballistic Information Network started in the 1990s.

Worse, the system Maryland bought created images so imprecise that when an investigator submitted a crime scene casing, the database software would sometimes spit out hundreds of matches.

So, your analysis is dead wrong in my view. It's very valid and good idea that can used for crime control - as a threat, to help stop criminals from trading stolen guns: because said ballistic fingerprint can link said gun to said criminals who have used it.
 
So, your analysis is dead wrong in my view. It's very valid and good idea that can used for crime control - as a threat, to help stop criminals from trading stolen guns: because said ballistic fingerprint can link said gun to said criminals who have used it.
Think about what you just said here.

Criminals trading in stolen guns are trading guns that have been STOLEN. Any ballistics trace is going to lead back to the person who it was stolen from, NOT the person who used it in a crime.
 
Think about what you just said here.

Criminals trading in stolen guns are trading guns that have been STOLEN. Any ballistics trace is going to lead back to the person who it was stolen from, NOT the person who used it in a crime.

Now, I'd like for YOU to think a moment about what I'm saying: why would a criminal want to get rid of a gun he'd used in a crime? OR, as you suggest, want to use a gun that can traced immediately as stolen?

It's not a gun control idea; it's a criminal control idea... A gun used in a crime that has a fingerprint trace, can be traced to the place that the criminal used it, over and over again as it passes through hands, provided of course that the cops have some sort of record of the act, they can usually get a line on who committed the crime. So, it's a sound idea. I'm surprised that anti cri inal people with guns don't agree.
 
Now, I'd like for YOU to think a moment about what I'm saying: why would a criminal want to get rid of a gun he'd used in a crime? OR, as you suggest, want to use a gun that can traced immediately as stolen?

It's not a gun control idea; it's a criminal control idea... A gun used in a crime that has a fingerprint trace, can be traced to the place that the criminal used it, over and over again as it passes through hands, provided of course that the cops have some sort of record of the act, they can usually get a line on who committed the crime. So, it's a sound idea. I'm surprised that anti cri inal people with guns don't agree.
This project basically made manufacturers fire a test bullet out of every gun they made. The test bullet was then to be used as part of a database. The theory was that any bullet recovered from a crime scene could be cross referenced with the data base to look for a match. If there was a match, the gun could be traced back to where it was purchased where there would be a record of who purchased it.

Now, let's say they traced a gun back to Bob's Gun Shop. Bob say's the gun was sold in 2002 to John Smith. The police contact John Smith only to find that the gun was stolen from his home as part of a burglary in 2006. They look up in their own files and find out that, sure enough, the gun was reported stolen.

How in the world does this tell them anything about where the gun is NOW?
 
This project basically made manufacturers fire a test bullet out of every gun they made. The test bullet was then to be used as part of a database. The theory was that any bullet recovered from a crime scene could be cross referenced with the data base to look for a match. If there was a match, the gun could be traced back to where it was purchased where there would be a record of who purchased it.

Now, let's say they traced a gun back to Bob's Gun Shop. Bob say's the gun was sold in 2002 to John Smith. The police contact John Smith only to find that the gun was stolen from his home as part of a burglary in 2006. They look up in their own files and find out that, sure enough, the gun was reported stolen.

How in the world does this tell them anything about where the gun is NOW?

When a criminal fires a weapon, it leaves empty casing behind, that's how. It's fingerprint evidence. Aaaand, if only used in one crime, the owner gets his gun back.
 
When a criminal fires a weapon, it leaves empty casing behind, that's how. It's fingerprint evidence. Aaaand, if only used in one crime, the owner gets his gun back.
I think we have a disconnect somewhere.

The "fingerprint" being referred to in the OP is the unique groove pattern a gun leaves on the bullet that is fired from it. Every gun has a groove pattern that is unique to it's barrel. Were not talking about actual human fingerprints.
 
Back
Top Bottom