According to forensic science, ballistic fingerprinting is a method of tracing shell casings back to a certain firearm. When a bullet is fired from a gun, markings are left on the shell casing. Generally, there's two important markings, one being the point where the firing pin hits the primer, and the other being the extraction point or where the shell casing is hooked and ejected. The idea is that every new firearm would be fired and that fired bullet and empty shell casing would be sent into the government to be entered into a national computer analysis database. It is concluded that after a crime has been committed, the pre-sale ballistics data will be matched to that of the crime scene.
New York and Maryland have required ballistic fingerprinting since January of 2000. So far, it has not helped solve a single crime. In 2003, California ballistic experts stated that ballistic fingerprinting is not feasable at this time. A study was done which involved firing more than 2,000 from 790 handguns. The report concluded that the ballistic fingerprinting on the shell casings were so greatly different, pistols firing ammunition from the same manufacturer, failed 38% of the time matching the first bullet to the second. When the ammunition was from two different manufacturers, the test failed 62% of the time.
This is a highly controversial method as many people do not think it will work. Again, in 2008, California ballistic experts stated that we aren't ready for ballistic fingerprinting and there isn't likely to be a success story anytime soon. The idea seems unfathomable to me. Every time a gun is fired, it wears on the barrel, and the wearing of the barrel will create different markings on every single fired round, even if it's from the same manufacturer. The technology is just too unreliable at this time. I don't know if I feel that this technique can even work, but I am optimistic.
Sources:
Milloy, S. (2002). How Reliable Is Ballistic Fingerprinting?
Fox news. Retrieved from
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,66007,00.html
Lee, Philip F. (2003). Ballistic Fingerprinting Brief.
Retrieved from
http://www.mcrkba.org/BallisticFingerprinting.html
Derek Rasey. Personal interview. February 24, 2011.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Castle Doctrine
A Castle Doctrine is also known as Castle Law or Defense of Habitation Law. It's an American law concept that we obtained from English Common Law. As far as states in the U.S. go, there are many different versions of this law. Basically, the doctrine states that one's place of residence, and in certain states, anywhere that someone is legally occupying, such as their car or workplace, is a place where one should be protected from illegal trespassing or violent attack. Some states, under the Castle Doctrine, allow for the use of deadly force against a trespasser to protect his/her "castle." In these states, using deadly force to protect one's home could be considered justifiable homicide under the Doctrine.
However, some states still have a "duty to retreat" version of the Castle Doctrine, which means that the use of deadly force is a last resort. In these states, your obligation is to find a way to avoid conflict and retreat the situation unless you have justifiable means to use deadly force against a prepetrator. In which case, if deadly force is needed, the "burden of proof" lies on the defense to prove that the defendant acted reasonably, and tried to initially avoid conflict and/or retreat the situation. Some jurisdictions allow the use of deadly force when retreat is not possible, or when the option of retreating could cause potential harm to the person under attack.
Thirty-three states have developed Castle Doctrine laws protecting the rights of self-defense, without the "duty to retreat" from any place that a person legally has a right to be. To me, this is absurd. All states should embrace the "stand your ground" law, under the Doctrine, that enables a person to use deadly force against an attacker, without having to think of a way to retreat the situation first. When you are under attack, whether it be out in public or in the privacy or your own home, there isn't much time to think. In my opinion, it's basic instinct to protect yourself and your loved ones that takes over. A person shouldn't have to be worried about spending their life in prison for protecting themselves and loved ones from becoming victims.
Sources:
NRA-ILA. (2010). Firearm Fact Card 2010.
Retrieved from
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83
Reinhart, C. (2007). Castle Doctrine and Self-Defense.
OLR Research Report. Retrieved from
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm
Gunownersresource.com. (2011). GOROLE.
Retrieved from
http://gunownersresource.com/gorole/index.php?title=Castle_Doctrine
However, some states still have a "duty to retreat" version of the Castle Doctrine, which means that the use of deadly force is a last resort. In these states, your obligation is to find a way to avoid conflict and retreat the situation unless you have justifiable means to use deadly force against a prepetrator. In which case, if deadly force is needed, the "burden of proof" lies on the defense to prove that the defendant acted reasonably, and tried to initially avoid conflict and/or retreat the situation. Some jurisdictions allow the use of deadly force when retreat is not possible, or when the option of retreating could cause potential harm to the person under attack.
Thirty-three states have developed Castle Doctrine laws protecting the rights of self-defense, without the "duty to retreat" from any place that a person legally has a right to be. To me, this is absurd. All states should embrace the "stand your ground" law, under the Doctrine, that enables a person to use deadly force against an attacker, without having to think of a way to retreat the situation first. When you are under attack, whether it be out in public or in the privacy or your own home, there isn't much time to think. In my opinion, it's basic instinct to protect yourself and your loved ones that takes over. A person shouldn't have to be worried about spending their life in prison for protecting themselves and loved ones from becoming victims.
Sources:
NRA-ILA. (2010). Firearm Fact Card 2010.
Retrieved from
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83
Reinhart, C. (2007). Castle Doctrine and Self-Defense.
OLR Research Report. Retrieved from
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm
Gunownersresource.com. (2011). GOROLE.
Retrieved from
http://gunownersresource.com/gorole/index.php?title=Castle_Doctrine
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Firearm Statistics & the Pessimistic Media
Now the facts. Guns are used 2.5 million times a year by law-abiding citizens, for self-defense, or about 6,850 times per day. What this means is that in a given year, guns are used 80 times more often to protect the lives of innocent citizens, rather than to take them. States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7%, and robbery by 3%. Legislations that disarm the law-abiding citizens are responsible for giving criminals a safer working environment.
It doesn't often make the news when a law-abiding citizen keeps themself from being victimized by using a gun in self-defense. Of course the accidental shootings make the news; such as when a child obtains their parents gun, or when a person doesn't use proper gun safety protocols and injures themself. Stories of firearm misuse by criminals will surely entertain the media. But generally speaking, we don't hear the stories about guns protecting innocent lives and keeping people from becoming victimized. Stories of self-defense, using a firearm, happen on a regular basis, yet the anit-gun media doesn't want us to hear about them. These are the stories we should also be hearing.
Jacksie King, an 87-year-old grandmother, lived alone in a small house in Illinois. One December night, an intruder entered her home by severing her phone lines, and prying the security bars off of her window. Jacksie was severely beaten and burglarized and the man was never found. Two months after the invasion, she awoke in the middle of the night to the sounds of an intruder. Again, the burglar cut her phone lines and pried the security bars off in her enclosed porch, and invaded her home. This time, she reached for her .38 caliber Colt revolver that her daughter had given her after the invasion two months prior. She fired the gun and dropped the intruder at her doorstep. 49-year-old, career criminal, Larry Tillman had been shot in the chest, which led to his arrest.
Just a few weeks ago, in Pensacola, Florida, 72-year-old, Jack Crawford heard a knock at his door on a Saturday night. He grabbed his handgun prior to answering the door, as a precaution. When he opened the door, he was instantly struck in the head with an aluminum basball bat. Three teenage boys were attempting to force their way into his house. Too bad for them, Jack had his gun in hand. He shot two of the boys. All three of them ran off. He chuckled as he later said, "I could have shot the third one, but I would have had to shoot him in the back as he ran away." Later that night, the two boys who were shot, were arrested at the hospital when they sought medical attention. The third boy was found later that night as well. All three were charged with attempted burglary and aggravated battery.
Sources:
Gun Owners Foundation. (2004). "Gun Control Fact Sheet 2004."
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
Burnett, D. (2011). "Who is the armed citizen?"
NRA Publications. America's First Freedom.
http://www.nrapublications.org/a1f/ArmedCitizen1.html
Collette, C. (2011). "Homeowner Jack Crawford shoots teens who attempted home invasion."
http://www.wtsp.com/news/state/story.aspx?storyid=171980&catid=19&6
It doesn't often make the news when a law-abiding citizen keeps themself from being victimized by using a gun in self-defense. Of course the accidental shootings make the news; such as when a child obtains their parents gun, or when a person doesn't use proper gun safety protocols and injures themself. Stories of firearm misuse by criminals will surely entertain the media. But generally speaking, we don't hear the stories about guns protecting innocent lives and keeping people from becoming victimized. Stories of self-defense, using a firearm, happen on a regular basis, yet the anit-gun media doesn't want us to hear about them. These are the stories we should also be hearing.
Jacksie King, an 87-year-old grandmother, lived alone in a small house in Illinois. One December night, an intruder entered her home by severing her phone lines, and prying the security bars off of her window. Jacksie was severely beaten and burglarized and the man was never found. Two months after the invasion, she awoke in the middle of the night to the sounds of an intruder. Again, the burglar cut her phone lines and pried the security bars off in her enclosed porch, and invaded her home. This time, she reached for her .38 caliber Colt revolver that her daughter had given her after the invasion two months prior. She fired the gun and dropped the intruder at her doorstep. 49-year-old, career criminal, Larry Tillman had been shot in the chest, which led to his arrest.
Just a few weeks ago, in Pensacola, Florida, 72-year-old, Jack Crawford heard a knock at his door on a Saturday night. He grabbed his handgun prior to answering the door, as a precaution. When he opened the door, he was instantly struck in the head with an aluminum basball bat. Three teenage boys were attempting to force their way into his house. Too bad for them, Jack had his gun in hand. He shot two of the boys. All three of them ran off. He chuckled as he later said, "I could have shot the third one, but I would have had to shoot him in the back as he ran away." Later that night, the two boys who were shot, were arrested at the hospital when they sought medical attention. The third boy was found later that night as well. All three were charged with attempted burglary and aggravated battery.
Sources:
Gun Owners Foundation. (2004). "Gun Control Fact Sheet 2004."
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
Burnett, D. (2011). "Who is the armed citizen?"
NRA Publications. America's First Freedom.
http://www.nrapublications.org/a1f/ArmedCitizen1.html
Collette, C. (2011). "Homeowner Jack Crawford shoots teens who attempted home invasion."
http://www.wtsp.com/news/state/story.aspx?storyid=171980&catid=19&6
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Gun Control Movement On the Rise
Gun control is a controversial subject: on one hand, I understand the want to rid the world of gun violence, and on the other, I understand that law-abiding citizens want their right to bear arms. Let me start off by saying, I am on the side that wants to rid the world of gun violence, WHILE having the right to bear arms. I am a firm believer that "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
It is no new news that the Democrats in Congress are pushing to alter the second amendment. In the wakes of the attempted assasination of Congresswoman Gabriella Giffords, Democrats have jumped at the opportunity to reopen the gun control movement. Representative Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.,who lost her husband in a fatal shooting in 1993, has renewed her effort to pass a legislation banning high-capacity magazines, or guns holding more than ten rounds. Most common handguns come straight from the factory with a standard magazine capable of holding 14-16 rounds, including those carried by law officials.
What about the massacre at Columbine? What about the fatal shooting at Virginia Tech? Among many others. Democrats have jumped at the opportunity to reopen gun control issues simply because a member of Congress was attacked. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of gun control, but I find it highly bias that dozens of students being gunned down is met by silence from the Democrats.
Sources:
Gun Owners Foundation. (2004). Gun Control Fact Sheet 2004.
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
Winkler, A. (2011). Gun Control's Surprising Return.
Yahoo! News. The Daily Beast.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20110130/ts_dailybeast/12136_guncontrolisbackonagendapostarizonashooting
Lochhead, C. Dlouhy, J. Egelko, B. (2011). Arizona trajedy renews attack on high-capacity gun magazines.
San Francisco Chronicle.
http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20110110/articles/110119929?p=2&tc=pg&tc=ar
It is no new news that the Democrats in Congress are pushing to alter the second amendment. In the wakes of the attempted assasination of Congresswoman Gabriella Giffords, Democrats have jumped at the opportunity to reopen the gun control movement. Representative Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.,who lost her husband in a fatal shooting in 1993, has renewed her effort to pass a legislation banning high-capacity magazines, or guns holding more than ten rounds. Most common handguns come straight from the factory with a standard magazine capable of holding 14-16 rounds, including those carried by law officials.
What about the massacre at Columbine? What about the fatal shooting at Virginia Tech? Among many others. Democrats have jumped at the opportunity to reopen gun control issues simply because a member of Congress was attacked. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of gun control, but I find it highly bias that dozens of students being gunned down is met by silence from the Democrats.
Sources:
Gun Owners Foundation. (2004). Gun Control Fact Sheet 2004.
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
Winkler, A. (2011). Gun Control's Surprising Return.
Yahoo! News. The Daily Beast.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20110130/ts_dailybeast/12136_guncontrolisbackonagendapostarizonashooting
Lochhead, C. Dlouhy, J. Egelko, B. (2011). Arizona trajedy renews attack on high-capacity gun magazines.
San Francisco Chronicle.
http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20110110/articles/110119929?p=2&tc=pg&tc=ar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)