If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   How reliable is ballistic fingerprinting? It's just another liberal bogus story..   (foxnews.com) divider line 229
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

772 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2002 at 3:09 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



229 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-10-18 10:31:59 AM
If it's not perfectly reliable, fine. That's not a reason not to do it. It can still work. They aren't getting convictions now because the criminals buy their guns either on the street or in states w/o fingerprintings. But if all the guns are fingerprinted, that problem goes away (except for older guns). Plus there's really no harm in doing this. If the database is too big, fine. They can only devote the resources when, like here, it is worthwhile.
 
2002-10-18 10:32:26 AM
As if we haven't had enough of this in the last couple days. So my question is, what's a liberal bogus?
 
2002-10-18 10:48:30 AM
RepoMan I am here to help.

lib·er·al Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)

n.
A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

bo·gus Pronunciation Key (bgs)
adj.
Counterfeit or fake; not genuine: bogus money; bogus tasks.
 
2002-10-18 11:17:30 AM
Thanks RandyJohnson. Since we're being all intellectual and whatnot...

Rule: Adjectives are placed before the noun.

Example: a wonderful book very interesting people

Be careful!

* Don't place an adjective after the noun
 
2002-10-18 11:32:06 AM
A person with liberal ideas or opinions. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

Not very useful to use the word in the definition now is it??

Nice flamebait headline.
 
2002-10-18 11:48:49 AM
A persons fingerprints can be altered by wearing rubber gloves. Cops still dust for prints anyway.
 
2002-10-18 11:51:23 AM
Yes Ash216 it is a flamebait headline. I did not write it though, and the definition is from dictionary.com so send them your comment. Oh and RepoMan you are welcome.
 
2002-10-18 12:12:14 PM
JohnC98's Handy Thread in Summary for any Gun-related Topic:

Gun Nut: Laws don't stop someone from commiting a crime.
Anti-Gun Zealot: But this might help solve crime.
Gun Nut: All gun killings are the fault of your anti-gun laws. Look at (insert Britain or Australia), criminals have guns and the rest are unarmed helpless victims.

--------10 minutes later----
Nut: U r a fag
Zealot: Fark off nu-b. I have a lower account number.
Nut: Shut up LIBRAL.
----------------
The rest of us who aren't thread trolls like Harmonia or the ever increasing numbers of "only enough taxes to pay the cops to keep the poor and/or dark-skinned people away from my lil' Militia playhouse" Libertarians will be busy living a life instead of riding on your odious waves of screaming.
 
2002-10-18 12:16:27 PM
Nice to see some professional and objective headlines.
 
2002-10-18 12:16:50 PM
RandyJohnson--I would send dictionary.com a note, but their defintion is comprehensive. Your citation of that definition is incomplete.
 
2002-10-18 12:21:14 PM
Randy--also, I did not mean to imply that you wrote the flamebait headline, I was just commenting on it.
 
2002-10-18 12:34:53 PM
If you didn't do anything wrong, why should you mind a fingerprinting, DNA sample, salive sample, sperm sample, blood sample, gun fingerprinting, retinal scan, constant camera surveilance, psychological profiling, background check and nostril sizing?
</sarcasm>

Because it provides little good for the amount of money that it requires. That alone should be sufficient. It costs money while doing very, very little. A professional criminal will not be caught with this, and an amatuer will be caught up on 500 other things.
 
2002-10-18 12:39:21 PM
P.S. KAVORKA, phrenology may be correct at times. But it isn't often right. I doubt that bullet "fingerprinting" is as unreliable as that, but it is much easier to avoid than hand fingerprinting.
 
2002-10-18 01:02:15 PM
Your citation of that definition is incomplete.

Ash216 I don't have a Citation. I drive a Civic.
 
2002-10-18 01:03:12 PM
 
2002-10-18 01:05:06 PM
Wow this thread does suck already and it hasn't even made it to regular fark. You know it's gonna be bad when the dictionary definitions begin in the first few posts.
 
2002-10-18 02:49:17 PM
He wasn't a sniper, snipers don't kill rando...

Wait, is this the right thread?
 
2002-10-18 02:55:34 PM
no this is a thread about word definitions.

odd, isn't it, how all the story links at junkscience.com are in FOX News, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times. the guy's obviously a paragon of non-political, independent thinking....no, wait. scientists don't have hidden agendas.
 
2002-10-18 03:14:12 PM
This from the same people who think evolution is "junk science."
 
2002-10-18 03:15:27 PM
Soon to be appearing:

(lots)
 
2002-10-18 03:15:35 PM
Fox News links should have a tag override script.
 
2002-10-18 03:17:23 PM
I would be in favor of this (hadn't heard of it before a couple weeks ago) if there were hard evidence that it actually worked, and didn't just take away liberty. Anyone know of any real studies on the matter?
 
2002-10-18 03:18:06 PM
 
2002-10-18 03:19:23 PM
If it's not perfectly reliable, fine. That's not a reason not to do it. It can still work.

do you burn money for fun?

or did you not bother to read the article?
 
2002-10-18 03:19:41 PM
Johnc98 You forgot one.

Elite poster: Here is a summary of what will be posted on this thread.
 
2002-10-18 03:20:10 PM
this coming from fox news...the same people who gave oliver north, Newt, and Bill O'Reilly their own shows.
 
2002-10-18 03:20:30 PM
 
2002-10-18 03:20:30 PM

If it weren't for liberals, there would be nothing to interrupt conservative right - wingers from counting their mound of cash earned off of the hard work of workers, who will be laid off to increase the value of the shareholders stock.


Without Liberals, this guy would not be able to inflict his slanted bias on the world, because he would not have anything to talk about on his show.


 
2002-10-18 03:21:05 PM
I actually watched fox news for a little while a few nights ago and was allarmed at how nearly unbiased their actual reporting was. Then the O'Reilly (SP?) Factor came on and I wept openly...

This story seems to originate from "that side" of Fox news....
 
2002-10-18 03:22:42 PM
How is filing a gun easier than putting on gloves?

I agree with the Bush team's current stated position, the California panel's silenced opinion, and the article's end conslusion (whehter Bush or FOX really mean it or not...), it should be studied more, and real law enforcement should consider those reports themselves, as they are the ones who would be using it. Then they can present a case to us, the people, with real detail about this method, instead of "every's an expert" Fark biatchfests.
 
2002-10-18 03:23:36 PM
Ah, whaddyaknow. Fox News. One of the sorriest sources for reliable open-minded news around.

Sniperboy. There is only one way to redeem yourself. Find Geraldo. During a live shot. Trust me, no jury would convict you.
 
2002-10-18 03:23:50 PM
O'Reilly's show is not "new reporting"..it's one's guy's view and opinion, just like CNN has Larry King 'dead'.
 
2002-10-18 03:24:16 PM
 
2002-10-18 03:26:55 PM
maybe we can have the firearm implant some dna extracted from the person who fires the gun onto both the bullet and shell.
however, evil twins may be able to frame their good siblings in this case.
familiar plot... anyone?
 
2002-10-18 03:27:05 PM
You know, I love it when people complain about the source of the news, and do not debate what the news says. "Fox is stupid" or such. The question in this case is how reliable ballistics fingerprinting? The answer is that it is not very.

Here is the facts at hand:

1. The computer matchups are only 38% reliable
2. Ballistics taken at the beginning of the life of a gun may be invalid later because of a change in the rifling of the barrel due to stress warping. This renders the match invalid and useless.
3. Ballistics can be very easily altered, simply by inserting a piece of steel wool down a barrel, or a small metal file. This again renders the match invalid.
4. Since the computers cannot reliably determine the results, the objects must be manually inspected. In a database this large, that would be next to impossible, even accounting for gun type/bullet type.
5. Even if the computer matchups become more reliable, that still leaves the ease of alteration. Any decent criminal with 1/2 a brain could easily stick a piece of steel wool down the gun barrel and instantly have, for all purposes, an untrackable weapon.

If these problems can actually be surmounted, I belive that ballistics fingerprinting would be a good idea. But for now, it is a stupid waste of time. The money spent on ballistics fingerprinting now, could be spent in more worthwhile programs that have a much higher rate of success.
 
2002-10-18 03:27:32 PM
Couldn't a guy with five minutes and a small metal file defeat this huge national database? I'm all for a better approach to solving gun-related crimes, but stupid is stupid.
 
2002-10-18 03:27:54 PM
Rex_Mantlepiece
Ah, whaddyaknow. Fox News. One of the sorriest sources for reliable open-minded news around.

Yeah, maybe, but they have the best shows of network television:
X-Files
Futurama
Simpsons
Malcom in the Middle

They are the shiat...
 
2002-10-18 03:27:55 PM
if there were hard evidence that it actually worked, and didn't just take away liberty

I have to comment on this. If it doesn't work, then it can't be used to identify guns, because that's what it does if it works. Which means it can't take away liberties because it would be as useful as asking a magic 8-ball a question. It could only jeopardize liberties if it works, and that is what is debatable.
 
2002-10-18 03:27:56 PM
If it is a bogus liberal ploy, how do the conservatives intend to catch criminals who use guns?

Oh wait... pass out more guns to the honest American citizens who need to defend themselves against the not-so-honest American citizens...
 
2002-10-18 03:27:57 PM
OH, just give in! Hand over the guns. Let the military protect us. No one will get in trouble if they don't do anything wrong. Criminals? There won't be any. They'll take care of that. Now just swallow your pill and watch your little purple dinosaur on TV.
 
2002-10-18 03:28:42 PM

Their extremely slanted language lets the truth seep through in a few places:


Maryland and New York already require ballistic fingerprinting. So far it hasn't helped convict a single criminal in Maryland despite "fingerprinting" 17,000 guns sold since January 2000. New York hasn't had success either.


In other words, it -has- helped convict criminals in New York; otherwise they would've said it hasn't. "Success" is one of those slippery words that can mean whatever you want it to mean. "Sure, it's helped convict a few criminals, but New York still has unsolved gun crimes! Therefore its program is a failure."
 
2002-10-18 03:30:11 PM
riddle me this bat friends..

if ballistics doesnt work, why do we have *ballistics*?

dumbass criminals don't worry about modifying their guns.
 
2002-10-18 03:30:37 PM
Correction on my first point:

1. ballistics fingerprinting is on 62% reliable
 
2002-10-18 03:30:38 PM
DEAD HORSE WARNING! DEAD HORSE WARNING!

Please quit beatin' it.

Let's have something more constructive, like a couple of b00bies links.
 
2002-10-18 03:30:38 PM
Does anyone besides me think we have started to place to high a value on human life? I mean sure I would hate to see a loved one die, but lets be realistic.

I always think of this when I am sitting in traffic because of an accident or something. To save one persons life, tens of thousands of people end up wasting an hour of theirs. Do the math.

Same thing with this. Sure you can say well maybe this will save just one life, and that would be worth it. but really, would it truly be with all the time/money/effort expended on this thing.

Thats why we all need to move to my system of rules based on credits. Basically, do stuff that benefits society, and you get credits. Do something that hurts it and you loose credits. run out of credits and bang.

Everyone wins. I sit in less traffic, people help out their fellow man, and the sniper can become gainfully employed and put his tallents to use on people that deserve it.

/rant
 
2002-10-18 03:30:54 PM
A story on "bogus" liberal ideas coming from Fox News?

It must be true, since there is no concervative bias from them at all.

I find it amazing that when it comes to the second amendment, conservatives want something to be 100% reliable or else it can't be used, but things like the death penalty can be 50-60% accurate and thats good enough.

the left sucks, the right sucks.....ahhh middle of the road baby, thats where you can rip on everything from.
 
2002-10-18 03:31:03 PM
Duh! Liberals think that criminals think as they do, and don't follow laws becuase of some outside influence. So instead they make tons of new laws, spend millions on feel-safe systems that don't work. At they don't make a damn bit of difference. Why not spend this money on education or put more police on the street!? Maybe prosecute criminals with harsh sentences, instead of a few years then probation.
 
2002-10-18 03:31:13 PM
"O'Reilly's show is not "new reporting"..it's one's guy's view and opinion, just like CNN has Larry King 'dead'."

just like cbs has dan blather and abc has peterless jennings and nbc has tom brokejaw (or does abc have brokejaw and nbc have jennings... hard to tell since they're all the same)... like when dan blather wouldn't report on a missing intern (levy) because the story involved a democrat... typical liberal biased slant...
 
2002-10-18 03:31:30 PM
Didn't we have about 15 threads devoted to Gun Control/Anti-Gun Control screaming already this week?

If I'm not mistaken it went like this.

Almost everyone agrees: Ballistics fingerprinting is easily defeated but won't work.

Gun Control: But More guns wouldn't have helped. Gun control good.

Anti Gun Control: Obviously gun control laws don't work. If we had more guns we'd be safer. Gun Control Bad.

Neo-Cons: Liberals want to wipe their ass with constitution and rape our daughters.

Ultra-Libs: Conservatives want to wipe their ass with the constitution and rape our sheep. While armed.

My question is:

What do these girls have to say about it, and can they say it while they are naked?

 
2002-10-18 03:31:31 PM
Oh, and to those saying that "any criminal with half a brain" could get past ballistic fingerprinting: any criminal with "half a brain" could get past most, if not all, tactics used by police now. Does that mean we should give up on all of them?
 
Displayed 50 of 229 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report