Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eclipse
I have come across some interesting statements for those of you who have been stating that the IBIS has not helped in a single case. . . . .
Source Citation: Feinstein, Dianne. "Ballistic Fingerprinting Can Help Reduce Crime." Guns and Crime. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 29 June 2011.
|
Always consider the source of information, whether here on TFL, or elsewhere. Senator Feinstein is a big gun control proponent.
As you've seen, there are a variety of objections to "ballistic fingerprinting," technical, historical, political, . . . I put it in quotes because I believe that phrase gives the impression that it's more accurate than it really is. As others have noted, metal parts (such as firing pins) wear over time, can be replaced, motified, etc. I won't go so far as to say it has not helped in a single case (because I don't know if that's true), but I will go so far as to say that it does not help in enough cases to justify its use. Revolvers don't eject casings, so "BF" won't help in crimes where revolvers are used. If the gun has been disposed of, sold, stolen from the original owner, or modified (in certain, but common ways) at any time since purchase, or had enough rounds to cause wear on certain parts, BF becomes useless.
Further, why would you want to maintain a database of
all firearms, or even all
handguns, when the overwhelming majority of them will never be used in a crime? That's a huge drain on government resources that will never solve any crime. And as Bartholomew Roberts points out, the only thing that BF will lead to is the last registered purchaser. In many states, that may not even be the last legal purchaser. Someone may have bought the gun new, then sold it, with no legally-mandated registration or permitting required.
Finally, it smacks of registration. Historically, and around the world, registration has led to confiscation. Disarming the populace has never, to my knowledge, led to good things for that populace. If I go out and purchase a new firearm, of any kind, I already have to fill out a 4473, and undergo a NICS check. Convicted felons cannot pass a NICS check. They do not fill out 4473s. Why should I, as an upstanding citizen with no felony record, submit to having my property tracked by the government? The US Supreme Court held that a convicted felon cannot be prosecuted for the crime of failing to register a firearm, because requiring him to do so would violate his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. If felons cannot be required to register firearms, why should I?
And yes, you can compare the 1st Amendment to the 2nd, and to the 4th, and to the 8th. No, speeches, in and of themselves, do not kill people. They can do far more than that. They can effect dramatic changes in society. Still, we do not have any screening process before someone may exercise their 1st Amendment right. We do not have a process for screening someone before they can exercise any of their other constitutional rights. If we all had to register our church before we could attend, and fill out a form, or sign up with some government agency before we had access to our 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, we'd all be screaming. And yet, in the final analysis, isn't it the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms that is intended to protect all of the others for us?
[/rant]