Post #57,181
10/16/02 1:27:16 PM
|
Don't need extra marker metals in bullets...
Our local TV station last night (www.wfaa.com) ran a piece where there was a proposal before congress to require all guns to be fired with a sample round prior to sale.
These sample rounds are then kept by the manufacturer, as the striations on the bullet created during the firing appear to be as unique as fingerprints under a microscope. So, no need for special metals in the bullet.
However, one key point was made. If someone wanted to beat this system, they would merely need to "alter" the rifling in the barrel slightly by scratching to create a different signature than the one left with the manufacturer. However, the piece did not address the fact that gun barrels are forged out of steel, so it would like a pretty hard material to change the signature. In addition, the person altering the rifling could mess up the aim of the gun. Therefore, the bullet cannot be traced back to the gun that was sold.
I don't think the problem is with our treatment of guns and ammo. It's our treatment of criminals who would use these to commit crimes. How about revising the the Constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" to read more like "punishment which is appropriate in severity and administration to the crime committed"?
This guy who's killing innocents in Washington deserves to be tied to a tree and then have each of his limbs shot off with a hollow point .223, starting with fingers and toes, then moving closer into the major limbs. He should bleed to death in a slow and agonizing way.
Punish criminals, not gun owners. And don't make gun owners into criminals.
|
Post #57,183
10/16/02 1:52:56 PM
|
Re: Don't need extra marker metals in bullets...
Our local TV station last night (www.wfaa.com) ran a piece where there was a proposal before congress to require all guns to be fired with a sample round prior to sale.
These sample rounds are then kept by the manufacturer, as the striations on the bullet created during the firing appear to be as unique as fingerprints under a microscope. I don't know about all guns sold in the US, but when I bought my Glock earlier this year (Glock 35 - .40 caliber semi), I received the casings from 2 rounds that were put through the gun by Glock before it was shipped to my gun shop. According to my father (who is much more into guns than I am), at least one casing was also sent to some national database. And the test-firing/casings-sent-to-national-database thing is a recent federal law, in place for all handguns sold in the US. However, one key point was made. If someone wanted to beat this system, they would merely need to "alter" the rifling in the barrel slightly by scratching to create a different signature than the one left with the manufacturer. Or replace the barrel completely. This isn't that hard to do, either. Nor is it illegal. How about revising the the Constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" to read more like "punishment which is appropriate in severity and administration to the crime committed"? I disagree with this. I personally think the Constitution (as far as this topic is concerned) is fine as it is. Punish criminals, not gun owners. And don't make gun owners into criminals. Amen. -YendorMike
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
- Jimmy Buffett, June 20, 2002, Tinley Park
|
Post #57,186
10/16/02 2:01:58 PM
|
Re: Don't need extra marker metals in bullets...
The problem with that scheme is the same one with gun control proper - it won't work (besides being unconst.) The focus needs to be on the ammunition and not the gun. Of course I'm still for test-firing the gun to record its rifle signature, although as you mention it's relatively easy to get around that one.
-drl
|
Post #57,207
10/16/02 5:15:17 PM
|
Re: Don't need extra marker metals in bullets...
No offense, but since the scheme won't work at all, why on Earth are you in favor of it?
I mean, even if you had a perfect registration system, virtually all guns used in crimes are stolen (usually in burglaries of law-abiding owners), so the registration doesn't actually help track down the guns used in crimes. That makes no sense, unless your goal is to pass stupid laws that will inspire contempt for the whole concept of the rule of law.
|
Post #57,208
10/16/02 5:18:41 PM
|
Er, Huh?
You need to read the thread. I'm not primarily for gun registration, although I think it should be done.
-drl
|
Post #57,231
10/16/02 6:36:56 PM
|
Catch 22 built-in
The entire rationale for armed citizens is: the mistrust of the same Government which would *have* to be the group controlling any 'reg data'. Period.
With the present Yahoo John Wayne group running amok, even I *cough* have begun to see the possibility (no longer at the very end of the prob. curve) - of armed insurrection becoming a last resort: to restore the *Constitution. In these post-PATRIOT desperate times.
* Which in it's near-infinite wisdom: provides this *very* remedy, when Government becomes bought/usurped by moneyed Interests or any other sort which nullifies Constitutional law. (Like THIS cabal.)
Unlikely? Of course. Impossible eventuality - you tell me.
Ashton Tom Paine Twain
|
Post #57,233
10/16/02 6:50:17 PM
|
Exactly.
The LAST organization I'd trust with setting any rules as to who is allowed to own a weapon is.......
The US government.
With the state governments running a close 2nd.
|
Post #57,234
10/16/02 6:52:10 PM
|
Re: Er, Huh?
You wrote, "Of course I'm still for test-firing the gun to record its rifle signature, although as you mention it's relatively easy to get around that one." Since this is trivial to evade, why do it?
The government doesn't have an infinite pile of money, so why not spend it on things that actually would be useful, like establishing better best practices for controlling police evidence? An awful lot of the guns used in crimes were purchased from crooked cops who stole them from police evidence rooms. This is the main mechanism by which the same gun gets used in many crimes.
Furthermore, bad and useless laws have a corrosive effect on public respect for the rule of law as a whole. This is a bad place to get into, because re-establishing credibility once its lost is really difficult. Most crimes get solved, for example, because people in the community are willing to talk to the police. Once you lose public respect for the law, you lose the willingness to talk, and then you lose the ability to solve crimes. You can't get credibility until you can solve crimes, and you can't solve crimes without public trust.
|
Post #57,347
10/17/02 11:29:20 AM
|
Re: Er, Huh?
I agree with all of this - but see no harm in putting as many obstacles in the path of bad guys as possible.
-drl
|
