'60 Minutes' started off their expose with a story about how ballistics tests linked a recently confiscated firearm to a recently committed crime. Analysis of markings on shell casings was used to find the proverbial 'needle in a haystack'. They then transferred this good detective work to the grand idea of cataloguing every gun in the nation in a huge database.

Their first witness to the benefits of ballistic fingerprinting was Pete Gagliardi, whose company, Forensic Technology, Inc. has developed ballistic fingerprinting hardware and software that they hope to sell. Gagliardi is not exactly an unbiased proponent. CBS also gave air time to NRA Veep, Wayne LaPierre, and his views. Although CBS acknowledged LaPierre's claim that it is very easy alter a gun 'fingerprint', they demonized the NRA for putting out a how to video on the subject. (As if a criminal couldn't figure out how to file down the barrel and firing pin.) Next up was AGS clown spokesman Matthew Bennett. His only defense on how easy it was to defeat ballistic fingerprints was to claim that criminals won't bother to alter their guns. (Riiight, because criminals never try to conceal their crimes.)

CBS contends that no long guns would be included in the database, and no names. Only new handguns would be required to be added. They admitted that it does amount to a national firearms database, but concluded that Americans were just as resistive when fingerprint technology emerged decades ago. (As if we currently have a national fingerprint registry.)

Overall, I would have liked to see CBS play the part of a skeptic a bit more. I thought that is what journalism was all about.

First of all, there are no guarantees that a national database would only apply to new handguns, and wouldn't include names. New laws almost always lead to more restrictive laws. The game plan of using a failing program as an excuse to expand the program is time tested, and pretty clear. Failure of all government programs is almost always met with a cry to expand the program and add more money and more resources.

Second, CBS only mentioned in passing that ballistic databases in Maryland and New York haven't solved a single crime. The fact is that they haven't managed to link a single cartridge to a single firearm; stolen or otherwise. This is a huge caveat, that CBS failed to trumpet. Instead, they simply admitted that opponents point to this fact as a failure, while proponents claim that it illustrates the need for a national program.

Third, very little time was spent discussing the failures of such a database. While the California study was very briefly mentioned, CBS failed to point out any of the findings. The California study found that cartridges among a specific manufacturer were subject to a 38% failure rate. When differing manufacturers were added, the failure rate climbed to a staggering 68%. None of this was discussed in the '60 Minutes' expose.

Fourth, nothing was said about the cost to taxpayers and gun owners of the cost of a registry. Paul Januzzo, VP of Glock, admitted that test firing and cataloguing the cartridges is expensive. This cost is ultimately passed on to the gun purchaser. Meanwhile, the cost of the database is ultimately passed on to all taxpayers. Given the prohibitive costs, and the likelihood of very little return, you would think that CBS would have at least mentioned it.

Fifth, there was no mention that even police organizations like the FOP admit that ballistic fingerprinting is a pipe dream. It was reported last October, when the FOP issued a statement saying that "the FOP does not support any federal requirement to register privately owned firearms with the federal government." Their main reason is that the funds are best spent on other proven methods of law enforcement. Management of a database, and checking tens of thousands of records would also spread them pretty thin.

Sixth, CBS never once mentioned that the ballistics of a firearm are not constant. The characteristics change over time with the wear and tear over repeated firings. Instead, their initial illustration, where a recent shell casing was compared to a recently confiscated firearm was taken as proof that the comparison does work. Never was there an attempt to analyze a recently fired shell casing with one that had been fired years before, as would be the case with a national database.

Seven, there was no challenge to the motives behind the opponents and proponents. Gagliardi has obvious motives in wanting to sell his technology, and the NRA's motives are to preserve civil liberties. Those were somewhat obvious. However, Americans for Gun Safety, masquerades behind the idea of being a proponent of gun safety. In fact, AGS is a gun control lobbying firm, with an agenda for making firearms ownership more difficult for everyone. Ballistic fingerprinting is merely one of their tools, and does nothing to promote 'gun safety'. In fact, I'd be willing to argue that the NRA and its members are more interested in gun safety than AGS.

In the end, I found CBS to be biased. Their lack of a challenge to the technology, and failure to discuss real numbers on cost and probability of success, might as well have been a ringing endorsement. Ballistic fingerprinting is a pipe dream that proponents hope to fund with millions, perhaps billions of taxpayer dollars. It is also tantamount to firearms registration, which has proven time and time again to lead to confiscation. Given the pros and the cons, why should Americans be so quick to sign away their Second Amendment protections? Given the gravity of the argument, why didn't CBS investigate it more?