Why don't they do balistics testing on guns before they sell them? They could then match the data to the serial # of the gun. To save the government money, every gun maker could have their own 100 gig server recording the data. Then whenever a murder is caused by a firearm, the cops then get the make and model of the gun used and dial up that companys server. They cross reference the data, Now they have a serial #, They find out if that gun is registered. If it is they have their guy. Of couse this would result in more guns being sold on the street, But the ATF would just have to crack down harder on the dealers. Smooth bore weapons would become more popular but all this could be avoided by not alerting the press. It would eventually leak out but we could then announce anyone selling unregistered guns will now be charged with accessory to murder.
We could also add mandatory sentences for possesion of unregistered guns(and raise the minimum sentence). The FBI would have to put in place programs to get peoples guns ballistic tested. I know this seems restrictive and I'm just throughing ideas out to deal with problems that might arise. It has benifits though. For one murders caused by guns would drop signifigantly. Convictions to murders ratios would be better. We could remove some of the gun restriction laws. No more waiting period.

I guess is what I'm saying is that I can't be the first one to think of this. So why isn't it in place?

If you were talking about starting a program like that, where every gun owner in America would have to take their gun(s) down to the local constabulary to have them test fired to get the ballistic footprint, that would not/could not fly in the USA.

In the region where I live, there would be so many people hiding guns, rather than give them to the police for a month or more to get them tested (and it would take a while), and I don't live in the hard core areas (Id, Tx, Az, NM, Wy, Mo) where the're liable to put up a mean fight.

You could maybe float a law that makes it "from now on" all new guns get ballistic tested, that may fly, but what about auto pistols with replaceable barrels? What about antiques that either you have no ammo or you don't want to shoot? There are just too many, millions and millions, and even more millions of spare parts to throw off the chances of finding everything.

And guns don't cause crime, crime was here long before the gun, only people can cause crime. The gun didn't walk into the liquor store and say "stick'em up", it was just an unwilling pawn in the game of life.

Well hell, a for now on deal won't be of much use for 50 years after put in place. There is no way a polotician would be that forward thinking. Damn

quote:

---

Why don't they do balistics testing on guns before they sell them?

---

You would have to also pass a law that would make it illegal for a person to modify the gun in any way.

Replacement of the barrel, firing pin and extractor would alter the results if later refired for testing.

Also prolonged wear of these componets, springs, etc since factory testing would cause test results not to match.

Not practical at all.

quote:

---

But the BATF would just have to crack down harder on the dealers

---

They already did, it's the form 4473. And the dealers requirement to hold that form practically indefintely. Also submitting a copy to the BATF.

In that sense all firearms purchased from a dealer are registered.

When someone commits a crime and the authorities recover the gun they will run the serial number to determine if it has been reported stolden. If so then they will contact the owner and take it from there. If not reported stolden they can determine what gunstore this pistol was sold from by purchase records held by the BATF and then obtain the orginal paperwork the buyer had to fill out prior to purchase which gives them all nessacary buyer information. If the gun has been since hold to another individual there should be a bill of sales held by the individual(s).

quote:

---

Smooth bore weapons would become more popular

---

If you leave a shell casing behind (most people do) the gun can still be traced to the crime.

Shotguns are traceable as well and they can determine the specific load used down to the exact grain.

quote:

---

For one murders caused by guns would drop signifigantly.

---

Not true. Take for example the city of chicago where it is illegal to possess a handgun.

Also reference states like califnoria and new jersey where strict gun control laws are already in place.

We have plenty of gun control. Moreso on the state level (see aboved mentioned). We don't need more federally mandated laws.

Laws on the books like limiting all firearms produced after 1994 to ten rounds are simply ridiculous. Do you seriously thing some gangbanger or predisposed murder would stop and say "my gun is postban and holds more than 10 rounds in the magazine, therefore i'm commiting a federal offense and I should not do this".

Gun control just limits law abiding citizens like myself.

Blame the chinese for inventing gun powder.

[This message has been edited by I Love Poop (edited 08-12-2002).]

Having a gun with more than 10 rounds in a magaxzine does make it easier to kill more people before reloading, no?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cokeboy:
Having a gun with more than 10 rounds in a magaxzine does make it easier to kill more people before reloading, no?

---

In a word, no.

It gives you the "option" of being able to kill more people before reloading, but that would only work if you can shoot well.

Forget everything you ever say on TV or in the movies, one guy cannot indiscriminately shoot two machine guns in a crowded mall and hit all the bad guys with only two clips.

It wouldn't matter if your gun held 50 rounds, if you can't aim and control it you're wasting ammo, there are plenty of people I would face with big clips sticking out of their guns, as long as I had three shots.

I have an aftermarket barrel in my springfield, but I still have the original barrel. If I were to kill someone illegally, I'd melt my barsto barrel and put the original back in. There's alot of people that keep their old stuff and would do like me. That would make it extremely difficult for that system to work.

We've seen how much violent crime has gone down since all of the new gun control laws have been enacted.

I like vermont's laws regarding guns. They let citizens carry without any permit or fees. If you can buy a gun legally, you can carry it. They have one of the lowest crime rates in the country 49th in violent crime and 47th in murder rates.
http://www.gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm

Nice article, too bad gun grabbers are impervious to logic.

quote:

---

Nice article, too bad gun grabbers are impervious to logic.

---

You read my mind.

I know what you mean.

Just last week a 17 year old got shot in the chest when he was helping a friend clean up a garage. They were drunk and stoned and PLAYING with a loaded gun they found. The kid died immediately, but no charges were filed. Yet people started writing into the paper saying that we need more gun control.

What the fuck? They didn't go and buy the gun, it was the kid's parent's gun. The kids were fucked up. The kids should have known better than to fuck around with a loaded gun.

How are they going to ever get people to stop doing stupid shit like that if they don't punish them. How about charging the owner of the gun with negligence if someone gets hurt by finding it? How about charging the parents with negligence if they don't know what their kids are doing? How about charging the other kid with manslaughter? I think every accidental discharge should have some kind of punishment attached to it, especially if someone get killed. We don't need more gun control, how about more people control or enforcing the laws already in effect. I wish I could find this one site I found awhile back. It showed some very good stats. For example, if a felon attempts to buy a handgun he is supposed to face some very serious charges, over 5 years minimum if I remember right. The number of felons that had been turned down due to the background check system was over 100,000(the gun grabbers brag about that) yet the number prosecuted was in the single digits(they don't brag about that)

In the 50s anyone could order a gun through a catalog(sears roebuck even) and get it delivered to your house. The crime rate was considerably lower then. The gun control laws haven't helped shit. Look at some of the cities that have the toughest gun control laws and then look at their violent crime rate.

I know I'm getting off topic, but oh well.
I found this awhile back too.

DOCTORS AND GUNS
Number of physicians in the US : 700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000 Accidental deaths per physician: 0.171 Number of gun
owners in US: 80,000,000 Number of accidental gun deaths per year: 1,500 (all age groups)
Accidental gun deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188
Statistically doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous
than gun owners
FACT: not everyone has a gun but everyone has at least one doctor

Seriously, at seventeen years old you should know better. Regardless if your stoned off your ass or not. Although the parents probably knew their kid was a fuckup or they were fuckups themselves (to be later determined) they shouldn't be held responsible yet.

Charging the other kid would be more approiate in my opinion. For I wouldn't let you handle a loaded firearm if you were intoxicated.

I'm sick and tired of people swifting the blame from where it belongs. Instead blamming the gun!