New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Should gun companies use microstamping to identify guns?

trapdoor

Governor
Microstamping doesn't work, and has been disavowed by the Association of Firearms and Tool Mark Examiners (the sanctioning body for crime investigation techniques involving firearms and tools).
 

Arkady

President
Yes I know, but how is that useful?
Obviously, it would provide leads in some investigations that would otherwise be cold. Find out which gun shot the bullet used in a crime and you might be able to track back to the last registered owner of the gun, and in some cases that will open new avenues for investigation and lead to the apprehension of the criminal. Get the criminal off the street and you can prevent future crimes.
 

Arkady

President
Microstamping doesn't work, and has been disavowed by the Association of Firearms and Tool Mark Examiners (the sanctioning body for crime investigation techniques involving firearms and tools).
Why doesn't it work? Is it a technical hurdle with the current methods, which presumably can be surmounted, or some fundamental problem with the concept? I can see why that group wouldn't want the technology adopted (if you made your money doing arcane ballistics work for crime investigations, any technology that lets a less skilled person do that job as well as you can threatens your job security). But I'd love to know if it's a real problem or just turf-defense.
 

freyasman

Senator
Obviously, it would provide leads in some investigations that would otherwise be cold. Find out which gun shot the bullet used in a crime and you might be able to track back to the last registered owner of the gun, and in some cases that will open new avenues for investigation and lead to the apprehension of the criminal. Get the criminal off the street and you can prevent future crimes.
And how often is that info useful in a criminal investigation? You have any idea?
 

trapdoor

Governor
Why doesn't it work? Is it a technical hurdle with the current methods, which presumably can be surmounted, or some fundamental problem with the concept? I can see why that group wouldn't want the technology adopted (if you made your money doing arcane ballistics work for crime investigations, any technology that lets a less skilled person do that job as well as you can threatens your job security). But I'd love to know if it's a real problem or just turf-defense.
The key portion of the word "microstamping" is "micro" -- it's extremely subject to wear. In practice it consists of very small number stamped into the chamber of the gun, where anyone with a flex-hone can simply polish them out (flex-hone = $12 at Harbor Freight). Even just normal cleaning can cause it to wear away.
 

Arkady

President
And how often is that info useful in a criminal investigation? You have any idea?
No. That should be studied, if it hasn't already. If we're talking about a low-cost solution, though, it wouldn't need to be a lot to justify it. This is one of those solutions that could be tried out on a provisional basis. Require new guns to be microstamped and watch to see if it makes a difference in crime investigations. If, after a few years, it's just not providing enough leads to justify the cost, discontinue it.
 

Arkady

President
The key portion of the word "microstamping" is "micro" -- it's extremely subject to wear. In practice it consists of very small number stamped into the chamber of the gun, where anyone with a flex-hone can simply polish them out (flex-hone = $12 at Harbor Freight). Even just normal cleaning can cause it to wear away.
I don't doubt the measure can be defeated by someone who makes the effort -- just as someone at a crime scene can wear a $1 pair of gloves and totally defeat the fingerprinting technology. Yet, fingerprints remain an extremely valuable tool in the arsenal of crime-scene investigations, because lots of people won't do so, even though doing so would be both much cheaper and much easier than disabling a micro-stamp. So, isn't it worth trying it out and seeing if, in practice, it works?
 
because a search on google for "how to defeat microstamping" brings 21,000 results, including helpful youtube videos for criminals who have poor reading skills.
 

trapdoor

Governor
I don't doubt the measure can be defeated by someone who makes the effort -- just as someone at a crime scene can wear a $1 pair of gloves and totally defeat the fingerprinting technology. Yet, fingerprints remain an extremely valuable tool in the arsenal of crime-scene investigations, because lots of people won't do so, even though doing so would be both much cheaper and much easier than disabling a micro-stamp. So, isn't it worth trying it out and seeing if, in practice, it works?
As I said, simply use and regular maintenance can reduce its effectiveness and eliminate it entirely. (the people who called it ineffective, the took/gun examiners, where the ones who initially called for it).

And criminals don't have to counter it -- they just buy or use a gun that predates it. I have a friend, who is also an auto-body man. He is stupid in that he hates seatbelts -- and because he can build cars almost from scratch he has not owned a car with seat belts in more than 25 years.
 
I don't doubt the measure can be defeated by someone who makes the effort -- just as someone at a crime scene can wear a $1 pair of gloves and totally defeat the fingerprinting technology. Yet, fingerprints remain an extremely valuable tool in the arsenal of crime-scene investigations, because lots of people won't do so, even though doing so would be both much cheaper and much easier than disabling a micro-stamp. So, isn't it worth trying it out and seeing if, in practice, it works?
what would happen if 99% of the population were born "before the invention of fingerprints" (the requirement to put fingerprints on all new people from this point forward)?
 

Arkady

President
As I said, simply use and regular maintenance can reduce its effectiveness and eliminate it entirely
So, in that case, would it remain effective in cases where the gun was fairly new or hadn't been used and maintained much? If so, wouldn't it be worth giving it a shot and seeing if it ended up being useful in enough cases to justify continuing with it?

they just buy or use a gun that predates it
Yes. And in the same way, someone can buy a car that doesn't have seat belts, air bags, ABS, crumple zones, etc. If, like your friend, a person is stupid, there are stupid options available to him. But, notwithstanding those options, seat belts, air bags, ABS, crumple zones, etc., have saved millions of lives. Would the mcirostamps save millions of lives? Presumably not. Would they save enough lives to be worth the minor cost? I don't know. It seems worth giving it a spin so we can have the data to answer that question. If it turns out they're not helpful, we'd just be talking a few extra dollars on the cost of a few years worth of guns, right? That's not much to pay to find out if this might save a lot of lives.
 

freyasman

Senator
No. That should be studied, if it hasn't already. If we're talking about a low-cost solution, though, it wouldn't need to be a lot to justify it. This is one of those solutions that could be tried out on a provisional basis. Require new guns to be microstamped and watch to see if it makes a difference in crime investigations. If, after a few years, it's just not providing enough leads to justify the cost, discontinue it.
It has been; it's of no value. It's simply a way to increase costs and further discourage gun buying.
 
Top