In forensic science, automated firearms identification is an important and yet unsolved problem.
In 1993, a rigorous CDC-funded study in the New England Journal of Science found that firearms kept at home greatly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or close acquaintance, rather than offering self-protection.
It concluded that for many long-used types of forensic science, including fingerprint identification, firearms identification, handwriting and toolmark identification, experts' conclusions were simply not supported by their methodology or training.
And the National Academy of Sciences, in a draft report, has found that forensic evidence, like fingerprinting and firearms identification, was often based on poor science practices.
Stacks of pro-rule comments were identical letters from members of Gun Owners of America, which told its members "if we win this, we can expose all the phony science used to justify many restrictions on firearms ownership".
Another factor may be the greater firearm availability among seniors (Conwell et al 2002; Christian Science Monitor 2004), including those with dementia (Reuters Health 1999).
We find that letters to the editor in response to epidemiologic research on firearm access contain considerable content that does not advance the state of science in this field.
It's an apt description of the disparate incidents, which include the discoveries of a harmless science project, exotic animals, flare guns, throwing knives and more than 1,200 firearms, many with rounds chambered.
(See T.S.A. firearms guidelines).
How must firearms be identified?
