reply to post by dooper
I agree, there are many ways to get around any databases of "bullet fingerprints." I've been around firearms since my early teens and have taken
courses (safety, how they work, etc.), was part of the Junior NRA program, participated in some NRA tournaments, and go to the shooting range when I
get a chance (I'm in college now, so I don't really have time for anything like this except the summer). Admittedly, I'm no expert, but I do have a
decent amount of knowledge of guns and their working parts, and on how they can be altered.
But, many people don't have such knowledge. I know a good amount of people who own guns without such knowledge. I'm not saying that they aren't
aware of what a gun can do, because they certainly are, and they know all laws and proper safety practices. But, that doesn't mean they are able to
take the weapon apart and put a new barrel or something in it, nor would they try. They only know how to take it apart enough to clean it after
firing, and put it right back together again, like in the manual. Many people own sports cars, but not all of them are able to do an engine swap, mess
with the ECU, or put in reforged pistons.
Most people wouldn't buy a new barrel or a new firing pin so that they could commit a crime and get away with it. So, if they were pissed by
something and felt the need to shoot somebody, they'd think twice knowing that their bullet markings were on record for the police to access. This
wouldn't really apply to anybody who plans on carrying out an explicitly planned pre-meditated murder, but it might deter some crimes of passion
(that aren't too passionate). I know this represents a small percent of any legal gun owners who would end up committing a crime, which is a small
number itself, but it would still probably have some type of effect on gun crime.
On second thought, people could also buy replacement parts or better ones without doing it to change the signature/rifling, and without even realizing
Yes, I understand that there are many holes in what I said earlier, but I wasn't proposing a fool-proof bill for Congress sign off on. I was just
suggesting a different approach to the situation. I guess I could have done better. My point was that instead of banning firearms outright, they
should just regulate them better in a way to prevent crime. Example being the point about automatic weapons (pre-1986 legislation). They were heavily
regulated, but legal for law-abiding citizens to own if they went through all the procedures necessary and passed a background test. Going 44 years
before having a homicide isn't too shabby. Of course, now there is such a limited number of them that prices have skyrocketed (supply and demand at
its finest - or worst, depends on which way you look at it
) so most citizens simply can't afford them anyways. And, 25 states pushed for
further regulations on them, so they are even harder to get. I know that any Class III Firearm is illegal in my state
. Not that I could even
afford one anyways...
Like I said before, I didn't really think about what I was proposing too thoroughly. I kinda got an idea and then ran with it without looking where
my feet were landing. I'm kinda tired and not really thinking straight at the moment. My main point, though, was lawmakers should look at it from
more of a standpoint like that, instead of saying "Guns are bad. We need to ban them all." One thing that I definitely think, though, is that any
gun crime, be it murder, assault, robbery, or shooting at someone and missing, should have the toughest penalties possible. Citizens who don't commit
crimes won't worry, and some criminals (not all, hardened criminals/mafia/VT style won't care) would think twice before doing anything stupid.
[Edit] Oops, forgot source in previous post...
[edit on 19-8-2009 by LetTheTruthBeTold]