By James Riswick
Opinions editor
In “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade,” there is a scene where Indy is surrounded by hundreds of cups and goblets and must discern which one is the desired Holy Grail. Searching for reliable information on guns and gun control is similar to this.
There is an endless supply of information pertaining to this subject on the Internet, yet trusting any of it is next to impossible. Sure, it is possible to get facts that support a side of gun control, but it is also possible to get information that is completely contradictory. Who are you supposed to trust?
I firmly support gun control, including the strict licensing of firearms and the regulation of their sale. I don’t own a gun, I don’t want a gun and I’d be worried about being in the same house as one. But in my effort to back up my opinions with hard fact, I found it practically impossible to find information without any biases either way. As much as I may agree with the statistics presented by an activist Web site supporting gun control, I cannot trust their information any more than I would trust conflicting information from the National Rifle Association.
The best places to search for information is government Web sites of crime statistics, or independent, international sources such as Interpol. Unfortunately, with these, one must infer for themselves what the information means.
When information on such topics as ballistic fingerprinting arise, it is hard to find such neutral information. This doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be discussed though.
Ballistic fingerprinting has risen to the forefront in the never-ending gun control debate. In theory, law enforcement agencies would build a database of ballistic fingerprints with the idea of tracing bullets used to injure or kill back to a specific gun.
According to Jim Vance, president of Crime Gun Solutions of Maryland and former chief of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, after firing a gun 5,000 times, the fingerprint was the same for the 5,000th shot as it was for the first. This goes against opponents to fingerprinting who claim that the fingerprint will change over time. This is a fairly reputable source, being from the former head of a government institution, and although I believe CGS’ results, there is still the potential for bias and incorrect data that I and everyone else must recognize. We cannot believe what we read simply because it conveniently affirms our personal beliefs, regardless of what side of the aisle you’re on.
There is no denying that ballistic fingerprinting would be a form of gun registration, and in fact, an essential part of gun registration and licensing should it ever occur. But that doesn’t mean that the registration of guns is a bad thing.
Cars are licensed to tie a vehicle to its owner for driver accountability purposes. Heck, fishermen are even licensed. What’s so wrong with guns being licensed, especially when they are used for the specific purpose of injuring or killing people? It is true that criminals would not naturally license their weapons, but licensing guns would theoretically cut down on crimes not committed by criminals. Many gun-related crimes are committed by ordinary people with no prior criminal record, but who commit so called “crimes of passion” or those against family members or other related people.
If nothing else, a licensed gun would deter a person from using their gun in such a crime of passion, and assure that the weapon be used strictly for defensive purposes.
Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, France and the United Kingdom are all countries with similar economies, culture and global stature as the United States. Combined they have a population of almost 95 million more people than the United States, but according to 2000 Interpol crime statistics, 9,756 murders were committed in these six nations combined. In the same year, there were 15,520 murders in the United States. This can mean only one of two things: either it is because America is the only one without gun control, or Americans are by nature more prone to commit murder. I don’t know which one is correct — I certainly couldn’t find any reliable information — but the former reason is certainly the more fixable of the two.
Gun registration does not necessarily indicate a slippery slope toward total disarmament of America. There are many Americans who favor gun control, yet do not believe in the confiscation of all guns. Besides, the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. Registration does not remove that right, it simply makes gun owners accountable for their actions. Gun registration won’t prevent every crime, but it could prevent quite a large number of them. That’s just my opinion, though, and who knows, maybe I could be wrong. But I can admit that, which is more than can be said about almost every pro- or anti-gun control Web site.
November 07, 2002