Seven years ago, New York started a database of "ballistic fingerprints" for all new handguns sold in the state. The bill's backers sold it as a crime-solving device, arguing that the state would now have a sample of a spent shell and bullet for every new gun sold. This, they said, would help police connect future evidence from crime scenes to specific guns.
Since then, the authorities have entered 200,000 newly purchased guns into the database and spent $1 million dollars a year on the system. Yet it hasn't led to a single solved crime. The only other state with such a database, Maryland, can attribute at least one conviction to the system since it was created in 2000-more than zero, but few enough that the state's own Police Forensics Division has suggested scrapping the program because of its demonstrated lack of benefits.
This hasn't come as a surprise to gun rights activists, who pointed to several potential problems when the databases were originally debated. Among them: The markings left by a gun are not guaranteed to be the same over the long term and can be deliberately changed with simple expedients such as filing inside the barrel; the vast majority of guns used in crimes are stolen or otherwise obtained in a black market, not used by their original legal owner; devoting so much record keeping to every gun sold guarantees wasted effort, since less than 1 percent of all guns sold will ever be used in a crime.
In 2003 a report from the California Attorney General's Office recommended against launching such a program because of its likely ineffectiveness in crime solving. And a March 2008 study from the National Research Council recommended against a national version of the New York and Maryland databases. In addition to noting the obvious ways in which such a program could be easily circumvented by criminals, the study said the theory behind the ballistics databases—that every gun marks shells and bullets in specific, stable, identifiable ways—has not been scientifically proven.
7 comments:
This article was interesting, and sad at the same time. I was pleased to learn that so much effort and so many resources had been put into what seemed like a good system, but it appears that all of it went to waste. This summary was good because it presented a clear and concise analysis of the topic, it presented all sides of the story, and talked about the topic's relevance (or lack of effect, for that matter) to forensic science. However, I would like to know what an alternative to the database could be, and just how soon they plan on scrapping the system. That being said, the article was well presented and was very interesting to read.
Sam, I found this article to be very interesting yet rather sad at the same time; after all these resources and effort being put into a gun database, one would think that it would lead to the solving of at least one crime. It just goes to show that money is no excuse for experience in the field of forensics ballistics. I loved the detail in your article because it allowed me to become overwhelmed by the story and fully understand the issue at hand. I also liked how you presented the database topic from different states because it shows that New York is not the only one faced with this problem. My only suggestion would be to tell what the government plans to do for an alternative ballistics system once they scrap this one. With that in mind, nice work overall.
This was a very interesting article - good choice.
Right away I was interested in this current event because the word "gun" was in the title so I thought it would at least be semi amusing. Well, it turned out to be a very interesting article about the failed attempts to create a gun ballistics database. The article talked about how New York has created a gun ballistics database that records all guns purchased from the day it was founded. However, the article then goes on to say that not one crime has been solved through this database even though they have over 200,00 guns on record and spend over $1 million each year. Sam did a great job keeping the interest of the reader throughout the summary of the article by using a tone in his writing in which the author seemed appalled at the failure of this program. Do i that Sam could have gone into a little more depth about the similar program based out of Maryland and how it has failed as well. I also think that he could have told the reader whether or not evidence technician even tested the guns found at crime scenes with the samples from the gun database. Overall, I was very interested in the article and feel that Sam did a good job in creating a detailed summary of the event.
I thought this article was very interesting and disappointing that it didn't end up working the way it was supposed to. I am disappointed that those that were involved in creating this bill neglected what gun rights activists pointed out, that over a period of time the markings a gun makes may change, which would make identification fruitless. It seems that to get to the heart of theb issue there needs to be more focus on the blackmarket where firearms are being bought and sold with no record thus making this ineffectual. I thought Sam did a good job of explaining this situation and did it in a clear but concise way. I think he could have explained perhaps what the lawmakers that proposed this bill have to say about this failure, but overall he did a good job.
I found this article very fascinating. I thought that the author did a good job of summarizing the article and clearly explained the situation with the gun databases. It's unfortunate that an idea with such high hopes of solving future crimes was so unsuccessful. I never knew that New York had such a database and its sad to hear of its evident failure. Although people created the system with good intentions, they obviously didn't take into consideration how closely connected the black market is with selling guns, thus rendering the database, which bases its information of sold guns, useless. I hope that there will one day be a program such as the "ballistic fingerprints" that will actually be able to help in crime solving.
This article was very informative. Unfortunately it explains the negative side of a part of forensic science it was still great to understand some of the bad things that can happen to databases. After noticing the toil put into such an idea and then watching it crumble was quite nerve racking. The fact that you explained this topic from differentiating points of view was a great way to show different opinions on the matter. I believe if there were some ideas about new options to replace this one put into this article, it would receive an A+ but for now I give it a solid A-.
Post a Comment