The National Research Council (NRC), in a report released in March of this year and reported in Science Daily, has recommended against the creation of a nation-wide database made up of ballistic images of all “new and imported guns” sold in the U.S.  ”Current technology” apparently “may not reliably distinguish very fine differences in large volumes of similar images…”  Science Daily also reported that current technology does not support the idea that ballistic markings can “identify a particular source gun ‘to the exclusion of all other firearms.”

This should come as news to Left-wing politicians and mystery movie writers who promote the idea that ballistics matching is the philosopher’s stone of criminal detection.  Their detectives frequently rely on ballistics and permit systems.  How often do we hear, “We’ve got a match!”  “Do you have a permit for that weapon?” is almost as common in crime movies as having a good character say, “I hate guns.” 

The NRC report does recommend further research into “Microstamping” technology currently required by California on all “new semiautomatic pistols sold in the state by 2010.”  (Other states are also dabbling in this panacea.)  One of the areas for additional study involves exploring the effects of possible tampering by criminals with microstamping mechanisms.

That’s a good line of investigation.  Just how hard would it be for a reasonably intelligent criminal to take a micro-sized file and remove the microstamping capability from a firing pin?  What about the old movie adage that a professional hitter, mechanic, or whoever always leaves the weapon at the scene of the crime?  Of course, an investigator might get lucky on the DNA.  Stay tuned for another report on that issue.

How about the careful criminal who uses a revolver or who polices up his or her brass after a shooting?  No brass, no microstamp.  No case, no how, no way.

How about using an older semiauto with no microstamping?  Ah!  Liberals have the criminal there!  They will simply ban or “license to death” any semiautomatic without the technology.  No criminal bent on robbery or murder would dare to obtain an illegal gun through a clandestine source. 

Wait a minute?  Criminals routinely break the law…  Might have to rethink this one, if in fact, the purpose of gun control is to keep guns out of criminal hands…  Of course it is!  The Dems said so in their draft platform plank on guns for 2008.  But then, I just bought a big bridge and a famous tomb in New York City.  Oh well…

Let’s do what the Liberals always say they want to do.  Let’s build a fence around the top of the cliff, instead of assigning an ambulance to wait at the bottom.  Let’s encourage concealed carry, so the risk-averse criminal will have to wonder if he or she is the only one with a gun in the potential crime scenario.  (Barack Obama doesn’t like this approach.  We (gun owners and civil libertarians) have no influence with him.)  Let’s keep career criminals in jail, instead of sentencing them to probation or community service.  (Not sure that this one corresponds to Democrat plans.)

Let’s also look at the immigration situation to make sure that we are not importing gang members wholesale from other countries.  (We need to influence John McCain on this issue.)  Let’s look at firearms education in the schools and more shooting ranges in our communities, so that guns will cease to be mystical, forbidden, attractive objects, and young people will have more positive role models with regard to gun ownership. 

Don’t hold your breath on any of these proactive approaches, because Liberals are quite comfortable contemplating the use of scientific innovation to strangle civilian gun ownership.  They are not comfortable with the concept that criminals are persons with evil intentions who will use whatever weapons are at hand to intimidate, rob, and kill those perceived to be weaker than themselves.

Def Mech


Comments



Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

FireStats icon Powered by FireStats