The Heart, the Mind, and "Ballistic Fingerprints"

Me ^ | 10/28/2002 | Joe Brower

[Joe Brower]

The Heart, the Mind, and "Ballistic Fingerprints"
Joe Brower
October 26, 2002

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 so-called "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 over 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 so-called "fingerprint" in time. So why is such an ineffective measure even considered?

"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. 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. Charles Schumer (D-NY) in the U.S. Senate, the appointed bureaucrats of the ATF, and groups like 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 currently ongoing in Britain and Australia. In the twentieth century, it preceded much of the conflict in Europe and Asia. Those who state "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 2nd, 4th, 5th 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.

Human beings, for all our technology and civilization, are creatures that 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 can not, will not heed.

[Joe Brower]

Here is the guest editorial column I have just written and submitted for publication to the Editorial page editor of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, my local paper and a wholly owned subsidiary of the NY Times. Whether or not it actually sees print, we shall see.

I send this along to you so as to provide you talking points about the whole "ballistic fingerprinting" ruse, which appears will be haunting us for some time to come. Please feel free to utilize and distribute freely.

Stay safe,

Joe Brower

[Joe Brower]

[Tijeras_Slim]

Unfortunately, in the real world, it doesn't work.

Like Socialism.
Like Communism.
Like Liberalism.

Good article JB.

[MileHi]

Great read, Joe, and good follow up to your thread from the other day. I hope it gets printed. The guy you were corresponding with (editor?) seemed just reasonable enough to do it.

Thanks for all you do, BTW.

[Ancesthntr]

Great article, Joe. The two biggest points (that ballistic fingerprinting won't/can't work as advertised, and that the whole point is really registration) are lied about and ignored, respectively, by the press & media. I hope you get printed, but don't hold your breath.

[Joe Brower]

Will wonders never cease. This guest column actually got printed today in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune (remember, that's "SHT!" $;-) They changed the title, but what the hey:

'Ballistic fingerprinting' advocates follow emotion, not reason

For some reason (which I can only view as fortuitous), this op-ed is also the first item on the front page of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune's website today, at least, as of 8 AM EST. Cool.

I also love the "black silhouette" they have as a placeholder for where the author's picture would go.

Of course, this wholly-owned subsidiary of the NY Times has seen fit to print no less than TEN anti-firearm columns/cartoons in the last month, capitalizing on the "beltway sniper" hysteria, but we take what we can get, I suppose.

Let Freedom Ring,

[Joe Brower]

Ping for the Liberty Belles. I emailed you but your addresses at liberty-belles.org all have your "mail quotas exceeded". D'oh!

[HangFire]

Congrats and job well done!

[HangFire]

They changed the title to “’Ballistic fingerprinting’ advocates follow emotion, not reason”. My original title was “The Heart, The Mind, and ‘Ballistic Fingerprints’”. And for some reason (which I can only view as fortuitous), this op-ed is also the first item on the front page of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune’s website today, at least, as of 8 AM EST. Cool.

Hey JB, not having any problems receiving on this end. Don't know why you would get that message...

[HangFire]

BTTT!

[Redbob]

Great letter, needs perhaps a little more data from the California study, where they concluded that the "match" rate for "ballistic fingerprints" even from the same firearm was low, and dropped I think below 50% when multiple firearms were added to the mix.
They concluded that computers could only narrow the number of options, and that human comparisons would be required for EACH study, meaning that hundreds of thousands of man-hours would be required if this type thing were to be implemented on a nationwide basis.

But of course, arguing this point commits the fallacy of assuming that any of this "ballistic fingerprinting" hogwash has anything whatsoever to do with catching criminals - it doesn't, it's only about discouraging and inconveniencing gunowners, and the Maryland experience perfectly illustrates that point.

[Ancesthntr]

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. Every time a crime is committed involving firearms, the antis invariably call for the disarming of those people that didn't do the shooting! On that basis alone, these morons should be dismissed as the practitioners of a primitive religion, rather than being lauded as "progressive thinkers" and the like.

BTW, great editorial.

[Ancesthntr]

Sorry, forgot my paragraph breaks. Here's how it should look:

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.

Every time a crime is committed involving firearms, the antis invariably call for the disarming of those people that didn't do the shooting! On that basis alone, these morons should be dismissed as the practitioners of a primitive religion, rather than being lauded as "progressive thinkers" and the like.

BTW, great editorial.

[lowbridge]

bump

[FreedomPoster]

I think I'll call my buddy who was wanting to ride over to the gun shop, and pre-purchase for 11/19. (they really need to make National Ammo Day a Saturday next year)

[Gritty]

Great article. Nice job!