My Rebuttal to James Alan Fox

After an article in which James Alan Fox suggested that NRA influence led to a slight increase in violent crime last year (Violent Crime Up for 1st Time in 5 Years, AP, 6/12/06), we exchanged a few cordial emails in which he claimed that although certain gun control laws can't be proven to reduce crime, they should be passed anyway because they are "good."

Not very convincing.

Dr. Fox was at it again recently in his Aug. 14, 2006 article, Straight shooting for better gun laws, making weak arguments for ineffective laws.

An excellent rebuttal to Dr. Fox's article by Howard Nemerov was recently reposted at Newsbusters.

After reading Dr. Fox's article, I sent the following reply, but have yet to receive a response.

Re: Straight shooting for better gun laws

Dr. Fox,

In response to your suggestions:

Ballistic fingerprinting

It's impractical; useful only for wasting time and money. We could put "telescreens" in every home — the next step to follow "crime cameras" going up in cities everywhere — but it would be cost prohibitive, ineffective in deterring and prosecuting criminals, and most people would not accept the violation of privacy.

No one has even hinted at this obscure idea since the D.C. sniper case in 2002. In fact, a Google News search of "ballistic fingerprinting" turns up only your editorial.

Here's an informative article on the logistic problems and ineffectiveness with fingerprinting — as Maryland and New York can attest to — that go far beyond barrel replacement.
How Reliable Is Ballistic Fingerprinting?


ATF tracing

As you mention, tracing, which is used for various purposes, does not in itself indicate sources of illegal guns. Even the ATF does not want this data released to the public, subjecting it to misuse; only to law enforcement agencies directly involved in a criminal investigation.

The "thousands of violations" by gun dealers consist mainly of typos on required paperwork which bills HR 5005 and HR 5092 seek to address by instituting a system of tiered financial penalties instead of the current two-option system — renew or revoke the license.

The ATF has all the authority and ability it needs to shut down gun dealers in violation of the law which they have done several times recently:
Feds revoking licenses of two Merced gun stores
ATF yanks shop's gun license


Registration

Would you call people with home, car, life, and flood insurance 'paranoid of circumstantial intrusion'? Or smart and practical? The 2nd Amendment is similarly an insurance policy against oppressive or ineffective government. You hope you never need it, but you're glad to know it's there if you do.

Registration — especially "LoJack-style GPS devices" — would make confiscation by future governments far too easy, putting all our cherished freedoms at risk. In the meantime, the potential for hackers to compromise this information makes gun owners vulnerable to home invasion and robbery. (Registry alarms raised) And like ballistic fingerprinting, it's another white elephant with no practical purpose other than draining tax revenue. Ask Canada.


Conclusion

The difficulty gun control advocates face is not the powerful NRA lobby, but that they propose solutions — for most people — without a problem.

I live in the suburbs of northern Virginia outside Washington. People here are not concerned about "gun crime." When we drive around, we see car accidents — not bullet-riddled bodies. If we can get where we're going and back home without getting hit by a drunk driver or a teenager, we're happy.

Those advocating the gun control measures you suggest represent a tiny, fanatical minority that Congress has realized does not have the votes to send them packing (pun intended). While some areas of the country have problems with gang activity and violent crime, the vast majority of gun owning or gun agnostic American families see it for what it is: violent crime instigated by repeat offending violent criminals that have nothing to do with the guns they own for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense.

Society accepts a certain amount of crime in exchange for liberty. It's part of the responsibility that comes with freedom. As long as the majority is not affected by it, the cries for more gun control — that "something must be done" — will go unnoticed.

Now, I have to get back to polishing my collection. :-)