Serial numbers on bullets?

[Skuzzy]

Your guys think in decimal terms.  A 64 bit binary number represents up to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 possible numbers.
64bits can be made pretty dang tiny.  Not big enough?  Each additional bit doubles the previous maximum.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Jackal1
OK...so you think the cost and the hassles, all the tax dollars spent pushing this through is worth  it to track the people who are allready law abiding? For what purpose?
  Total moronic thinking by another name seeker who is being paid by us to do nothing about something that that don`t have a clue about. Makes perfectly good sense to me.

  As far as being tracked from a personal stand point, I totaly disaprove and will avoid it in all cases possible. It sets a very dangerous presedence.

all the hassles? lol Come on now. like i said it will allow you to confiscate guns from those who posess the "unmarked" bullets in them. Seems like that would be a lot of gang fire-arms to me.

As for being tracked, you have a drivers license? social security number? credit card? internet? you are already tracked. Its not like the damn bullets have gps in them. Sheesh

[lazs2]

raider... think about it... When a gangbanger is caught with a gun it is allways confiscated... one, it is probly stolen... two, he doesn't have a licence to carry anb three...  if he is a felon or convicted of domestic abuse(how likely is that ?)... he like, beet would have lost the right to have any firearm... none of these things would have anthing to do with the ammo.

but let's look at it this way... you seem to be saying that to solve even one crime... the expense and intrusiveness and potential for abuse is worth trying any sceme.

would you say that to stop one siime bag child molester it would be worth requiring everyone to show ID to get an internet connection and then pay say.... oh... half a cent or so (might cost a little more tho latter) for every internet site that you visit... the isp would charge this and be required to turn over those lists of sites visited to the  government.

lazs

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2


It wouldn't solve any murders and even if it solved one the intrusiveness of it and POTENTIAL for future abuse... and the extreme inconvienience and expense would most certainly NOT be worth it.

How would ballistic fingerprinting have caught the DC sniper?  How much is ballistic fingerprinting costing in canada and how many crooks has it caught so far?   Ask them if it is "worth it".  

 You think they are gonna go to the sporting goods store and buy ammo in their name for their stolen gun?

gun banning is indeed a concern but not because it requires an amendmant... it is a concern because making things impossible to own is the same as a ban.  it is incramentalism and unfair "targeting" of law abiding groups.

lazs

how do you know it wouldn't solve any murders?

Because he used the rifle he purchased to do the shootings with.

That is exactly the point. Make it where they cant just go buy more ammo at the wal-mart. Make it more difficult for criminals to buy ammo.

Yes gun bans would require a repealing of amendment. There is no other way to do it. Its on the bill of Rights remember.

How does this in anyway make it impossible to own ammunition? And please don't say "cause it makes me paranoid". I mean a real reason.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Raider179
all the hassles? lol Come on now.
 

Yes the hassles. Come on now what?
You think this is accomplished by one person on a piece of notebook paper? Do you have any idea the cost, time and man hours this will take to shuffle this through umpteen hundred different processes? Do you know who will be paying the bill on this?
Noticed you avoided the question. I`ll ask it again. What benefit would come from a law that would only affect the allready law abiding citizen?
 

   

like i said it will allow you to confiscate guns from those who posess the "unmarked" bullets in them. Seems like that would be a lot of gang fire-arms to me.

As far as I know there is nothing preventing the confiscating of illegal weapons used by gangs or anyone else , as far as that goes, as it stands now. How`s that working out?
The idea of taking away and the confiscating of weapons of any kind, ammo or whatever used in illegal activities is a pure joke. It will never happen.
  All this time and money would be more well spent in the prevention of crime BEFORE the facts and not AFTER the facts on some whimsical joke. Hiring and training of additional law enforcement comes to mind.

As for being tracked, you have a drivers license? social security number? credit card? internet? you are already tracked.  

Yep and like I said, I avoid it in all cases possible. I`m not going to run out and get my social security number tattoed on my forehead either.

Its not like the damn bullets have gps in them. Sheesh

You aware of the proposal to put chips in handguns? Not nearly as far fetched as you seem to think bud.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Raider179
Make it more difficult for criminals to buy ammo.
 

Impossible to do.

[lazs2]

raider... ballistic fingerprinting has caught.... ZERO criminals... why would the DC sniper be any different?

you do have a slight point on making ammo somewhat harder for crooks to get... there simply would be so much less  of it out there for anyone that it would make it slightly harder for the crook...

but... you didn't answer my question about internet use.    How do you feel about my plan?

lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by Raider179
As far as ballistic fingerprinting Toad, if it had included rifles and not just been for handguns the washington D.C. sniper would have been caught from the start.

 

That sir, is simple horse excreta.

First, Malvo stole the Bushmaster rifle from the Bull's Eye. So, IF they had ballistically fingerprinted the bullet from the Bushmaster and IF they got a match when they went to the Bull's Eye there would have been nothing to link the gun to Malvo whatsoever.

Second,  California Department of Justice study tested 800 guns and got incorrect matches 62 percent of the time. So it is HIGHLY doubtful that a correct match would have been made in any event.

So, go ahead, enlighten me. Explain your statement and show me how ballistic fingerprinting would have caught Malvo "from the start".

Bet  you can't.

[Maverick]

HHHMMM so they can't solve crimes with serial numbers on weapons but they can with numbers on bullets.  Yeah right.  The administrative task of keeping track of all the numbers would be a nightmare.

[Toad]

Yet, a recent report by the Maryland State Police's forensic-sciences division shows that the systems in both states have been expensive failures. New York is spending $4 million per year. Maryland has spent a total of $2.6 million, about $60 per gun sold.

But in the over four years that the systems have been in effect neither has solved a single crime. To put it bluntly, the program "does not aid in the mission statement of the Department of State Police."

A recent study by the State of California points to further practical difficulties with ballistic fingerprinting. The study tested 790 pistols firing a total of 2,000 rounds.

When the cartridges used with a particular gun came from the same manufacturer, computer matching failed 38 percent of the time. When the cartridges came from different manufacturers, the failure rate rose to 62 percent.

And this study does not even begin to address problems caused by wear, so the real-world failure rate can be expected to be much higher.

Hawaii has had both registration and licensing of guns for several decades.

In theory, if a gun is left at the crime scene, licensing and registration will allow the gun to be traced back to its owner. Police have probably spent hundreds of thousands of man-hours administering these laws in Hawaii. But despite this massive effort, there has not been a single case in which police claimed that licensing and registration have been instrumental in identifying a criminal.

The reason is simple. First, criminals very rarely leave their guns at a crime scene, and when they do, it is because the criminals have been killed or seriously wounded.

Second — and more important for ballistic fingerprinting — would-be criminals also virtually never get licenses or register their weapons. The guns that are recovered at the scene are not registered.

[Rino]

Originally posted by DieAz
they want to make everyone crooks, so they will have absolute corrupted power over all.

but it doesn't really matter.
 
one weapon, they will never be able to outlaw.
its the most devastating weapon, of all weapons.


think about it, maybe you'll figure out, what this weapon is.

     Beetle's breath?

[DieAz]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
wouldnt it be easier just to have on file in some computer database a sample fired round from every gun made/sold?

Then you could at least track the round down to the guns original owner

waste of time and money, simple crown job will make all file records null and void.
and still can't track it.


Rino; LMAO, maybe.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Your guys think in decimal terms.  A 64 bit binary number represents up to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 possible numbers.
64bits can be made pretty dang tiny.  Not big enough?  Each additional bit doubles the previous maximum.

Like I said Vehicle Serial numbers are 17 digits. The possible permutations are 294,300,971,827,200,000,000.

I think we won't run out of numbers soon.

[Toad]

You'll have plenty of numbers.

What you'll never have is a valid reason for them.

[midnight Target]

Yep, I agree.

Lots of very good reasons for not going forward with this law. I wonder though.

Does anyone have an idea how we can prevent gun violence?