For decades, the public perception of solving gun-related crimes has been shaped by images of dogged detectives relying on witness interviews, confidential informants, and the occasional brilliant hunch.
While these methods remain vital, the modern investigation of gun crime has revealed a counter-intuitive truth: the most reliable story often comes not from people, but from the physical evidence they leave behind.
This shift is driven by a strategy known as the "presumptive approach." This approach operates on a single, powerful premise: every crime gun generates a stream of data that, when systematically exploited, becomes actionable intelligence.
By treating every piece of ballistic evidence as part of a larger network of information, law enforcement agencies are uncovering surprising truths about how gun violence is perpetrated, and how it can be stopped.
For a long time, criminals believed that once the shooting was over and they had escaped the scene, the small, spent cartridge cases left behind were worthless pieces of metal. This attitude was perfectly captured during a 1980 murder investigation when a co-conspirator, overheard on a surreptitious recording, tried to reassure his partner:
“The cops got nothin’, all they got is some brass on the floor.”.
This proved to be a huge miscalculation. In that case, firearm examiners studied the unique microscopic markings on those cartridge cases. From that "brass on the floor," they identified the specific make and model of the murder weapon. ATF agents then traced its manufacturing history and discovered that only three such guns with that specific barrel design had been shipped to Connecticut, all to the same gun dealer. That lead broke the case wide open.
This story represents the core of the modern crime-fighting philosophy. The presumptive approach operates on the principle that every piece of ballistic evidence can provide "actionable crime-solving information of tactical and strategic value." What was once dismissed as insignificant is now recognized as the crucial first data point in solving violent crime.
Historically, ballistics analysis was a largely reactive process, often driven by a detective's hunch that a specific gun might be linked to a known crime. This method, however, was fundamentally inefficient and represented a systemic misallocation of expert resources.
A study conducted by Doreen Hudson at the Los Angeles Police Crime Lab revealed the startling limitations of this approach. When operating on hunches, the lab's firearm examiners were producing positive, case-advancing information only about 30% of the time. This meant that 70% of their valuable time was spent proving that a gun under examination was not the murder weapon, an outcome that kept investigators chasing ghosts instead of hunting shooters.
Recognizing this critical inefficiency, Hudson implemented a new data-driven process. All ballistic evidence from shootings and all test-fired samples from seized guns were entered into the Integrated Ballistic Identification System (IBIS), which searched for matches across the national NIBIN database. The results were stunning: the lab began providing positive information to detectives "well over 70 percent of the time," a figure that later rose to 80 percent.
This was a complete 180-degree reversal. The strategic implication is profound: it marks a fundamental shift from a system that expended its resources on dead ends to one that proactively identifies serial shooters, often before they can shoot and kill again.
Criminals and the guns they use frequently cross jurisdictional boundaries. Unfortunately, investigative information often remains locked within informational silos, unable to follow them. This creates a fragmented intelligence landscape where cases go cold, not for lack of evidence, but for lack of a network.
The murder of 68-year-old Hazel Love in McCalla, Alabama, is a catastrophic but predictable failure of such a system. In March 1996, cartridge cases were recovered from the scene of her murder and entered into the NIBIN database, but with no immediate leads, the case went cold. Four years later, in September 2000, police in the nearby town of Adamsville seized a crime gun from a felon and placed it in their property room, where it sat forgotten.
The crucial connection was not made until December 2002, when the Adamsville gun was finally test-fired and checked against NIBIN. It linked directly to the Hazel Love murder from six years prior. This single piece of information led to the arrests of two men in February 2003, who were subsequently linked not only to the murder but to other "serious crimes across the county."
This case powerfully demonstrates that "one department’s forgotten evidence is another department’s crucial evidence." Without a networked system that transcends jurisdictional lines, a clue that could solve a murder and unravel a wider criminal enterprise can sit on a shelf in one town. At the same time, a victim’s family waits for justice in another.
While advanced technology is a game-changer, it is only one component of a successful crime reduction program. The most effective strategies rely on a balanced combination of People, Processes, and Technology, an arrangement best visualized as a three-legged stool. If any one leg is weak or missing, the entire structure becomes unstable.
A 1995 drive-by shooting in Chicago was solved nearly a decade later precisely because all three legs worked in concert. The NIBIN database (Technology) provided the crucial link between the murder weapon and the crime scene. Dedicated People, ATF agents and police, pursued the leads generated by that link. And established Processes, specifically crime gun tracing, allowed them to follow the history of the crime gun back to its original purchaser, ultimately identifying the shooter.
This necessary balance can be easily upset by human challenges, such as inter-agency politics or "turf protection," which stifle the innovation and collaboration required to make the system work. The strategic objective is to create a properly balanced system where all three legs work together to "provide timely and sustainable crime-solving benefits to the public."
Gun-violence investigations require a three-legged stool methodology: People, Processes, and Technology.
Remove any leg, and the system collapses.
A 1995 Chicago drive-by case was solved years later because all three worked together:
In this case, NIBIN provided the link (Technology), investigators pursued the lead (People), and firearm tracing tracked the gun’s history (Process).
But the balance is fragile. Inter-agency politics, lack of training, or turf protection can turn innovation into inertia.
Success depends on a system where all three legs align, ensuring technology serves justice, not bureaucracy.
If these technologies and data-driven processes are so effective, why isn't every police department using them for every recovered gun? The answer often lies in the absence of formal policy.
Today, most people can’t imagine getting into a car without buckling their seat belt, but it wasn’t always that way. It took policy to get us to buckle up.
Without a formal directive, even proven tools like NIBIN are often "under-utilized." The necessary processes can be seen as bureaucratic or labor-intensive, leading officers and agencies to skip them unless a major crime is involved. This leaves critical gaps in the intelligence network.
Forward-thinking leaders have recognized that policy is the key to widespread adoption. As Ohio Attorney General, Mike DeWine made it a priority to ensure police forces use NIBIN for every recovered gun, guaranteeing, "we will solve hundreds and hundreds of more crimes... We will get criminals of the streets and we will ultimately save lives."
The state of New Jersey went even further, passing the first law of its kind that requires law enforcement to use systems like NIBIN and the eTrace firearm tracing system. Today, there are a total of 10 states that have similar laws.
The key strategic insight is that technological tools, no matter how powerful, only achieve scale when their use is mandated through policy. Without directives, even best practices remain optional, allowing violent criminals to exploit the gaps.
The Bottom Line: Every Crime Gun Has a Story to Tell
The age of detective hunches has given way to data-driven precision. Through the presumptive approach, agencies are learning to treat every crime gun and piece of ballistic evidence as part of a larger story, one that links shootings, identifies repeat offenders, and prevents the next tragedy.
Gun violence may leave chaos in its wake, but it also leaves clues, silent, measurable, and waiting to be read.
The question is no longer whether the evidence can speak. It’s whether we’ll listen.