Caught a bit on MPR last night, a woman (didn't catch her name) was talking about unsolved murders in the US. She was advocating improvements in police cold case squads. She said that ~40% of murders go unsolved. Then she proceeded to tell people how to get away with murder... shoot someone, from a distance, with a clean gun, at night, outside, away from witnesses, etc...

She made two statements in particular I feel compelled to ask about. I don't remember exact wordings so I'll paraphrase...

1.) "Over all murder rates have been going down, but the rate of unsolved cases is still going up. So while the police have been getting better at detering murders they have been getting worse at solving them"

Why does she assume a reduction in murder rates is because of police action? Correlation vs. causation, and all that. Maybe she cites proof in her book, but on the air it came across as a knee jerk simplistic view of the world. Wonder if she's read Freakonomics, and what she'd say about that authors assertion that crime reduction was largely due to abortion, and not police policies.

2.) "Gun companies are advertising guns that are finger print resistant, making it easier to commit crimes with them"

??? I've never heard anything like this. Has anyone else? Are gun companies really doing this, or is she stark raving mad?

Well, most criminals don't listen to MPR... Criminals aren't smart, and I think most of the time that's how police catch them.


I want to say that I have heard that used as a selling point.

Aren't Glock's fingerprint resistant because the frame is textured?

I heard the story too. I don't remember the part about guns being finger-print resistant, but DNA is a more accurate marker than finger prints anyway. She did discuss DNA, saying that one of the tricks for getting away with murder was to shoot the person with a gun from as far away as possible so you don't leave DNA evidence at the crime scene. The main thesis of the little how-to segment on getting away with murder was that the key was to leave as little evidence at the crime scene as possible. From the story I came to the conclusion that handguns are best kept in reserve for self defense purposes; if you want to get away with murder, use an untraceable high-powered rifle with a scope.

> ... advertising finger-print resistant guns ...

I too want to know, which company is making such an idiotic pitch????

The first time I heard of "finger print proof guns" was in the movie "Runaway Jury". That movie was an anti-gun rally disquised as cinema. Since then, I have heard the phrase "finger print proof guns" via a Brady report and another from a court report.

How is it that gun enthusiasts such as myself and others have never seen a gun company hawking "finger print proof" guns? Is such a a marketing ploy being used by a real company or is this just another subeterfuge for the anti's to rally over?

Here's the story, if you care to listen to it:

Fingerprints are corrosive by nature. A fingerprint resistant finish is less prone to oxidation and easier to grip. However, I have not been able to find an example of a gun maker advertising this.

Having worked in law enforcement, I have to say I've never seen a surface which could not be fingerprinted. I've seen fingerprints lifted off of styrofoam cups, checkered grips, and human skin, to name a few.

I think there is a misunderstanding that is being exploited by the anti-gunners. Fingerprint proof finishes are for cosmetic preferences. Have you ever cleaned something and then had the finish messed up with unsightly fingerprints? There is nothing sinister about fingerprint proof finioshes. They were not invented to protect criminals, as the antis would like you to believe. They are inventing another myth to go with their "cop killer bullet" and their "assault weapon" that the media will further distort.

So it sounds like it's BS. Man it pisses me off when they pull that crap. Distortions and outright lies like this are the kind of thing that changed me from being mildly anti, to pro gun. When will they learn that lying just hurts them.

Not to mention that you can avoid leaving fingerprints by using a super duper ultra high tech brand new invention, called gloves. So the point to a fingerproof gun is???

I don't recall her mentioning it, but I wonder if murders by revolver are solved less often than those by semi-auto, because no shell casings are left behind as evidence?

I think I'll start a parrallel thread over on the High Road to see if a broader audience has any other input.

OK, I just listened to the story again (thanks Matt). I didn't hear her say anything about fingerprint proof guns, so either they posted an edited version (unlikely) or I've been having a brain lapse, and confounded two separate sources in my head (probable). So I retract attributing that statement to her. Still... I know I've heard the finger print thing somewhere recently, and would like to get to the bottom of it.

MPR has a history of biased reporting on gun issues, but this particular story wasn't too badly done. The reporter didn't mention revolvers vs. autoloaders, but as noted above she did say that the less evidence left behind the less likely the murder is to be solved. Since revolvers leave less evidence than autoloaders this would indicate a revolver would be a better choice.

I want to like NPR. I believe they are more proffessional than many media outlets, but sadly I've heard a fair amount of crap from them concerning guns. My favorite was a piece about "assault weapons" in which their intrepid reporter went to the range and saw/tried an AR. She was shocked to report that these military style weapons are capable of hitting a man sized target at the almost unbelievable range of ..... 100 yards!

OH MY GOD!!! Stop the madness, think of the children!!! These modern high tech military rifles have so far surpassed legitimate hunting rifles that they are capable of such incredible accuracy! For what possible legal reason could one want to hit a man (or deer) sized target that far away

The company that was doing the finger print resistant coating and advertising it was the same company that made the "Tech 9", I remember the news special it generated, I also believe that company went out of business several years ago or at least stopped making the "Tech 9s"

The company said the reason was to reduce rusting from the salt in finger prints.

Unfortunately, NPR has a history of leaning to the left, but so does the majority of the media. Guns rights rarely get a fair shake from the media. Many reporters are guilty of willed ignorance or unfettered bias against guns. That is why we are so pleased everytime we see guns portrayed in a positive way.

Actually all media is guilty of leaning whichever way it believes is in its financial best interest, and left and right have little to do with the problem. I believe that the left/right liberal/conservative dichotomy is an artificial division imposed by the people in charge in order to distract us from the real division, which is liberty versus tyranny. We have tyrants on the left and tyrants on the right, but we're so busy squabbling amongst ourselves that we let them run roughshod over our liberties.

Tyrants on the left and tyrants on the right control the media. Gun control is the ultimate tool for the tyrants to ensure their grip on power. The tyrants on the left are the best tools for accomplishing this. On other issues, like controlling the sex lives and recreational activities of the population, the tyrants on the right are the best tools.

Try this exercise--forget your preconceived notions about liberal versus conservative and look at who is espousing a tyrannical point of view versus who is espousing a more libertarian point of view. You might be surprised by what you see.

Imagine the 'reporter's' apolexy if she were to witness my 1896 Swedish Mauser nailing 'man sized targets' out to 1200 yrds. (ok, ok, i know, i can't actually SEE that far, but the rifle doesn't know THAT)

Yes, Navegar (and perhaps others) did some advertising about fingerprint resistance. The Califonia Supreme Court noted that:

Navegar also distributed an advertising brochure or catalog describing its guns and accessories, which it mailed to anyone interested and, on at least one occasion, printed in special issue magazines. In a page describing the TEC-KOTE finish, Navegar claimed the finish provided "natural lubicity [sic] to increase bullet velocities, excellent resistance to finger prints, sweat rust, petroleum distillates of all types, gun solvents, gun cleaners, and all powder residues. Salt spray corrosion resistance, expansion and contraction of the metal will not result in peeling of finish."

MARILYN MERRILL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. NAVEGAR, INC., Defendant and Respondent.

No. S083466.

SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

26 Cal. 4th 465;28 P.3d 116;110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 370;2001 Cal. LEXIS 4945;CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P16,123;2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6704;2001 Daily Journal DAR 8171

August 6, 2001, Decided

You can see a copy of the advertisement in question at http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Kairys1.htm, about halfway down the document.