Ballistic "Fingerprinting"

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Forgot to mention that Switzerland and Israel have universal military training. The gun owners there actually know what they are doing, rather than just claiming such.

Stand in front of me and threaten my family's saftey. We'll see who knows what they are doing.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Bubba Joe gets mad at Billy Bob. Bubba Joe has a gun, goes and gets it from his car (or pulls it out) and blows Billy Bob away from 10 feet away.

Another person believing that "red neck beer swilling bumpkins" are the ones "blowing each other away" in recond numbers. It just ain't so. Not too many of those bumpkins living in the inner cities we keep talking about, are there. No one has brought up stats for Hickville, AL or Bumfuck, TX.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,070]

>Wouldn't it be nice if we were all like McGiver on television.

Uh, I've been told I am . . .

>Is it possible to just always walk away from trouble as the quote
>above says.

I prefer to run, but yes.

>Suppose someone is armed and dangerous and inside your home.
>Are you just going to walk away.

Hell yes. Nothing in my house is worth my life right now. TV's, computers, cars, even my rig - they can all be replaced. Even if I had a gun, I'd rather see someone make off with a TV than kill them - and I think I will live longer with such a plan.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

The governors of Virginia and Maryland both support ballistic fingerprinting; they also support private gun ownership. (Understandably, the issue has come up for them recently.)

Do you really belive Parris Glendening supports private gun ownership? [for those who don't know, he's te current MD governor] Let me tell you, he and KKTownsend do not support gun ownership in any way, shape, or form.

Quote

Quote

I can predict the outcome of the studies if they are done impartially. They'll come back with a great big thumbs-down.

I suspect that rather than giving a thumbs-down, they will come back with a result that the pro-gun lobby uses to try to kill fingerprinting, and the pro-control lobby uses to support fingerprinting. Business as usual, in other words.

I don't care what either "lobby" says. Police have unanimously stated that money spent for this can be better spent elsewhere in law enforcement. I'll go with the guys in blue on this one.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>Suppose someone is armed and dangerous and inside your home.
>Are you just going to walk away.

Hell yes. Nothing in my house is worth my life right now. TV's, computers, cars, even my rig - they can all be replaced. Even if I had a gun, I'd rather see someone make off with a TV than kill them - and I think I will live longer with such a plan.

Can I then assume you have no family, loved ones, or roommates in the house?

I'm not looking for a fight either, but like I've said, if you come after my famliy I will do everything in my power to stop you from harming them. If you're in my home, that starts with placing me between you and them, and a gun between me and you with you looking down the business end.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,070]

>Do you really belive Parris Glendening supports private gun
> ownership?

I don't claim to know what he's thinking, just what he's said in public.

>I don't care what either "lobby" says. Police have unanimously stated
> that money spent for this can be better spent elsewhere in law
> enforcement. I'll go with the guys in blue on this one.

Then why support a study if you know what the conclusion must be? An unbiased study does not pressupose any answers. It sure isn't the case that we have plenty of money to spend on studies.

[billvon 3,070]

>Can I then assume you have no family, loved ones, or roommates
> in the house?

Amy can run as fast as I can.

>I'm not looking for a fight either, but like I've said, if you come after
> my famliy I will do everything in my power to stop you from harming
> them. If you're in my home, that starts with placing me between you
> and them, and a gun between me and you with you looking down
> the business end.

No problems there. I would place a higher priority on getting my family out, but everyone can decide how they want to deal with such a situation themselves.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't care what either "lobby" says. Police have unanimously stated that money spent for this can be better spent elsewhere in law enforcement. I'll go with the guys in blue on this one.

Then why support a study if you know what the conclusion must be? An unbiased study does not pressupose any answers. It sure isn't the case that we have plenty of money to spend on studies.

I know what the study's conclusions would be because I have already read a few studies conducted. But I do support the feds conducting their own study because they will see that it won't work. SAAMI says it won't work. FOP says it won't work. I want the feds to realize it won't work, so that they don't do it.
[H.R. 3491, The Ballistic Imaging Evaluation and Study Act of 2001, and its Senate counterpart, S. 2581]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

I am not anti-gun, I am pro-truth.

Then you must hate the media, huh? I mean, people use firearms in defense of self all the time. We all remember the day-trader from Atlanta who went out and blew away all those people, right? Well, who here knew about that the very next day in the very same town, someone used a gun to defend himself and seventeen others from a suicidal homicidal? [the suicidal homicidal left a note saying he was going to take a bunch of others with him]

It's only telling the truth if you tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

And what did this homicidal intend to use to kill the 17? A butter knife?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

And what did this homicidal intend to use to kill the 17? A butter knife?

And what did they stop him with? That's my point. You're looking at only half the score.

[analogy]
Hubby goes to a ball game. Indians versus Yankees. Hubby gets home, and the wife asks him who won. He says "The Indians scored six runs." [/analogy]

So what's the problem? He didn't tell her who won. You have to look to both scores. Just because one side has a lot of scores, you have to look to how many times the other side scored.

Application: Yeah, a lot of people die because someone shoots them. But how many people live because someone saved them with a gun?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[steve1 5]

Bill,
I don't mean to get all grumpy and defensive on this issue. I'd like to jump with you again at Lost Prairie. But, getting back to the gun issue: "sometimes you don't have a choice to run or not."

For example's sake. There was a guy in my home town (Missoula) who was psycho. He'd come into people's homes and murder them after raping the women folk. One day he came into a man's home and overpowered the owner. He then tied the guy up out in the garage. Mr Psycho then stabbed him just below the heart. He then went into the house with plans of raping the wife who was tied up upstairs. The only thing was the guy wasn't dead. He somehow undid his ropes. Found an old damaged rifle and some shells. He then went upstairs and shot and killed the SOB when he came at him again with a knife. If he hadn't done what he did the guy might have escaped, might have killed his wife, or finished raping her. So, I guess the moral of this story is: I keep a gun not because it makes me feel ten feet tall, but rather to defend myself and family if a psycho comes into my home. Having a gun could be all it would take to discourage or even kill an attacker if needed.

I know there are also stories that we can all tell that didn't have such a happy ending. Accidental shootings, etc. Guns are dangerous and most gun owners realize this and store, and handle them responsibly. If handled properly they are no more dangerous than a host of other things in a person's home. Steve1

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

And what did this homicidal intend to use to kill the 17? A butter knife?

And what did they stop him with? That's my point. You're looking at only half the score.

Since you declined to answer the question, I will assume the homicidal had a GUN.

Was the homicidal a felon prior to the incident? Was he declared mentally incompetent prior to the incident? Was he allowed to come by the gun legally, or did he steal it from some careless but legal gun owner?

One might be tempted to point out than in most western industrial nations, those who "go postal" for various reasons generally don't have easy access to a gun, and going postal with a box cutter is far less likely to kill a lot of people than going postal with a gun.


Why can't you guys just be honest and admit than owning a gun makes you feel more manly and gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside. Instead the gun lobby comes up with all sorts of bogus arguments to explain away the fact that the US has a major problem with gun violence that other similar nations don't have, without admitting that it has anything to do with gun ownership.

[jfields 0]

As Kallend said, you declined to answer the question about what the "homicidal" was using. A gun.

On the subject of unanswered questions, here are some from a previous post:

Quote

You said:
***I say the courts be damned...This is one instance where I would break the law knowingly and intentionally

And that separates you from the "thugs" you are worried about in what way? Isn't it the courts of our country that decide what is right and what is wrong for our country? We vote and serve on juries as our part of those decisions.

Then you continued with:

Quote

but they knew what was theirs to take, and they did in any possible way...I'll do the same

Bank robbers and rapists think the same way. If each person is entitled to act in any way they want, who is to judge if you refute the jurisdiction of our court system and laws? Nobody? Do you truly think anarchy is better than democracy?



Please explain the discrepency between quoting the second amendment and professing your utter disregard for the law. If you feel that your personal value system makes you exempt, how is that different than a criminal's justification of their actions? Is it merely that your chance to act has not yet come up, while the criminal's did, making them a criminal?

I'm not saying you are a bad person, or that you'll randomly go off shooting someone. But the underlying principles you state are directly in conflict with both the laws and the truth. I'm not saying that guns can't be used correctly in self defense on occasion. But you are attempting to explain away and negate every factual circumstance involving deaths to innocent people, misrepresenting opinion as fact and simply ignoring the body of evidence that contradicts your opinion.

It would be much more forthright if you (and the other ardent firearm proponents) just said:

I want my guns and I don't care if they are illegal. I don't care about anyone else's safety or rights, or how my gun ownership might infringe upon them. This is about me, my desire to own firearms and use them as see fit.

There isn't a damned thing Kallend, BillVon or I could say to rebut that. It would be your opinion, and beyond dispute. It is also an honest acknowledgement of the scenario. End of discussion, time to go home.

But so far, that honesty has been conspicuously absent. Instead, we've been subjected to biased statistics, incorrect assertions about the meaning of the second amendment, bogus analogies between guns and just every household object, and great heaps of baseless rhetoric. If this subject is worth discussing at all, it is worth discussing with honesty, rationality, and willingness to admit valid points of the opposing side. A hundred plus posts ago, after a presentation of facts, I said that if ballistic fingerprinting was inaccurate there was no point in doing it. I also said that I was far from expert on the technology behind it. That was purpose of this entire thread. I have yet to see a similar admission or concession relating to the errors or inaccuracies of the proponents of firearm ownership.

From a sincere question (which was answered and acknowleged), this debate has degenerated to the level of toddlers screaming while their fingers are stuck in their ears. Let's stop yelling and start listening.

[billvon 3,070]

>I don't mean to get all grumpy and defensive on this issue.

Sorry, neither do I. I don't mean to question whether it's OK for you to own a gun; I think you should make that choice for yourself. I just want to point out that a gun, while a good weapon for home defense in some situations, is not nearly the panacea that some gun advocates claim it is.

In your example, a man was overpowered. How did that happen? Did the lunatic jump through the front window and brandish a large knife while the homeowner was armed and 15 feet away? (to use an example from Kennedy's recent hypothetical) Or did the homeowner answer the door and get immediately attacked and overpowered? If it was the former, a gun would indeed be an asset. If it was the latter, it would be a liability, unless you always answer your door with your gun in your hand.

>Guns are dangerous and most gun owners realize this and store, and
> handle them responsibly.

I would agree with this, but . . .

>If handled properly they are no more dangerous than a host of other
> things in a person's home.

I can't agree with this. Nothing in my home can, if operated correctly but at the wrong time, kill my neighbors. Guns are unusually dangerous and must be treated with extreme respect - even gun advocates will tell you this. They are not like anything else in your home. Are they worth the additional risk? That's for an individual to decide for themselves. In many cases, people can own them with an acceptable margin of safety; I assume you're in this category, and that's fine. As long as people treat them that way, and not a completely safe and necessary adjunct to any sensible person's security, I have no problem with people owning guns.

[wmw999 2,534]

Quote

Another person believing that "red neck beer swilling bumpkins" are the ones "blowing each other away" in recond numbers.

Well, you could pick any pair of names; any location, any presumed ethnicity, any religion. It's easy to pick on rednecks here in Texas, but the concept is the same regardless.
Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[steve1 5]

>>Why can't you guys just be honest and admit than owning a gun makes you feel more manly and gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
.........................................................
"Simply. Because that is not the case. Why is it that you wild eyed liberals can't admit you're scared to death of guns? I truly hope you never have need of a gun for your families sake. Living in a high crime area with a family and not having one or not knowing how to use one is pretty stupid in my mind. I don't think your stats are going to help you much when a criminal or group of thugs come to visit sometime in the future." Steve1

[steve1 5]

Quote

Quote

Another person believing that "red neck beer swilling bumpkins" are the ones "blowing each other away" in recond numbers.

Well, you could pick any pair of names; any location, any presumed ethnicity, any religion. It's easy to pick on rednecks here in Texas, but the concept is the same regardless.
Wendy W.

..........................................................
I don't get your point. Are you trying to say that people who believe in gun ownership are all beer swilling bumpkins?

[steve1 5]

Are you trying to say that our fore-fathers who started this country are no better than common criminals because they had the balls to stand up for what is right? If things ever get so bad that the United States is no longer the U.S. and the people are suffering under an oppressive government, you're darn right, I'd stand up against them. That is the purpose of the constitution. To keep our country from digressing into something it wasn't meant to be. As much as you and Kallen want to take away our right to own and bear arms, It's never going to happen. Steve1

[steve1 5]

Bill,
I think most guns owners realize that there is no perfect weapon for all scenarios. Cops carry pistols because they know they are effective weapons for many situations. I realize that it is possible for a person to be disarmed if you get to close to an armed criminal. When police arrest someone they keep their distance. In some close quarter situations, I know this isn't always possible. But as far as I'm concerned the guy with the gun has a better chance of coming out alive, and a gun would be an asset. For example: if two wrestlers were going to wrestle. Who would win? The one with the gun or the one without the gun? My money would be on the one with the gun. Today, at the gym where I work out, I was watching a group of police train. They were practicing this exact scenario. They were escaping from an apponent on the ground, and then trying to draw and shoot their weapon. Of course they were simulating the drawing and firing part. If you would have told them they would be better off without that pistol.....I don't think they would agree. Steve1

[quatorze 1]

Steve, thanks, you reminded me of an email I received from a friend who swears that he is an independent computer consultant for the government, and works at Ft Bragg.

Any way, read on

Quote

>
>Some more advice. Avoid all weapons which jam in their own carbon
>buid-up and have a failure correction device on the side of them. If at
>all possible find a Thompson which, by the way, has a caliber starting
>with a "4".
>Ron
>
>Excellent words of advice........ enjoy!
>
>Infantry folks -- take heed...
>Except for # 24, that is. '9 mm' is what Uncle Sam makes you carry, but
>it just isn't a '.45!'
>
>Subject: Rules for a GUNFIGHT
>
>1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of
>your friends who have guns.
>2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is
>cheap. Life is expensive.
>3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
>4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast
>enough or using cover correctly.
>5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral
>and diagonal movement are preferred.)
>6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun
>and a partner with a long gun.
>7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance,
>or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
>8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading,
>or running.
>9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more
>dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun. Use
>a gun that works EVERY TIME.
>10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they
>should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
>11. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one
>you lose.
>12. Have a plan.
>13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.
>14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
>15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
>16. Don't drop your guard.
>17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
>18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone
>else, keep your hands where I can see them.)
>19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
>20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
>21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill
>everyone you meet.
>22. Be courteous to everyone. Friendly to no one.
>23. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong
>commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
>24. Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which
>does not start with a "4".

I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle

[jfields 0]

Quote

Are you trying to say that our fore-fathers who started this country are no better than common criminals because they had the balls to stand up for what is right?

Nope. I was specifically replying to Kennedy, who had said that he would willingly violate the law. I was looking for his explanation of how his mentality is different than that of a criminal if he believes the laws do not apply to him.

Quote

That is the purpose of the constitution. To keep our country from digressing into something it wasn't meant to be.

Generally, I agree, but the constitution does specifically allow for gradual change in our laws. They are meant to be gradual to prevent overreaction, but the long-term flexibility is what gave women the right to vote and abolished slavery.

Quote

As much as you and Kallen want to take away our right to own and bear arms, It's never going to happen.

I don't want to "take away" your right to own and bear arms. However, it would be nice if you'd acknowledge that unrestricted and anonymous ownership of an unlimited number of firearms is not a right guaranteed by the constitution. Starting with that common ground of understanding makes the whole debate more reasonable, as we have a mutual understanding of our starting point. We may disagree from there, but at least the foundation is clear.

[steve1 5]

[
I don't want to "take away" your right to own and bear arms. However, it would be nice if you'd acknowledge that unrestricted and anonymous ownership of an unlimited number of firearms is not a right guaranteed by the constitution. Starting with that common ground of understanding makes the whole debate more reasonable, as we have a mutual understanding of our starting point. We may disagree from there, but at least the foundation is clear.

[steve1 5]

Quatorze,
Good advice. Makes since to me. Steve1

[rushmc 23]

FYI Fingerprinting is another "buzz" word. It just doesn't work! And the police agree that is doesn't work.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200210\NAT20021029a.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[riggerrob 643]

Returning to the original question, ballistic-fingerprinting sounds like another power grab by bureaucrats.
It sounds like they are trying to establish another expensive bureaucracy that will produce limited results at high cost. Any goo defense attorney should be able to shoot holes in the concept.
It will eventually reduce the number of crimes committed with firearms by raising the cost fo gun ownership. Non-gun toting citizens should not be expected to pay for this silly bureaucracy, so ballistic-fingerprinting will inevitably drive up the cost of gun registration, limiting the number of people who can legally afford guns.
Criminals will naturally ignore any law about ballistic-fingerprinting.
It all sounds so silly!
It sounds like another knee-jerk reaction to the shootings in Washington DC.
As for the media coverage, they are just being "useful idiots" parroting whatever was said to them in a news conference.

I don't own any guns because I fear bureaucrats far more than I fear criminals.