Sportsmen's gun ownership always in jeopardyBy Marc Folco
There are several recent national and world reports --exposing the dangers of misbegotten gun legislation that has backfired -- causing crime rates to skyrocket and costing taxpayers millions of dollars. It's proof that most gun laws infringe only upon the law-abiding citizen and further threaten continued lawful gun ownership by all sportsmen.
Ballistic fingerprinting was all the rage just a couple of years ago and Maryland and New York were leading the way in the use of a computer database that records the markings made on the bullets from all new guns, says author John Lott Jr. It was predicted that "the days of criminals using guns were numbered."
Yet, according to a recent investigative report by Lott, the Maryland State Police's forensic-sciences division shows the systems in both states have been expensive, miserable failures. New York is spending $4 million per year. Maryland has spent a total of $2.6 million, about $60 for every gun sold. But in the four years that the systems have been in effect, neither has solved a single crime.
"The systems have drained so many financial resources from other police activities that ballistic fingerprinting actually could end up increasing crime," says Lott. "In New York, how many crimes could 50 additional police officers (equal to $4 million in combined salaries) help solve?"
The physics of ballistic fingerprinting are straightforward enough. When a bullet travels through the barrel of a gun, the friction creates markings on the bullet. But there are many other factors that influence the particular markings left on the bullets -- for instance, how often the gun is cleaned and what brand of cartridge is used.
Moreover, ballistic fingerprinting can be thwarted by replacing the gun's barrel -- just as criminals can foil tire-matching by replacing their tires. Even easier accomplished, the markings on bullets can be altered simply by scratching part of the inside of a barrel with a nail file, which would alter the bullet's path down the barrel and thus change the markings.
Also, criminals very rarely leave their guns at a crime scene, and when they do, it's because the criminals have been killed or seriously wounded. Second, and more important, is that criminals also virtually never get licenses, or buy their guns from licensed gun dealers, or register their guns and therefore they and their guns don't enter the fingerprinting process.
"Good intentions don't necessarily make good laws," says Lott. "What counts is whether the laws actually work, and end up saving lives. On that measure, ballistic fingerprinting is just another failure in a long line of gun-control measures."
Lott also exposed another gun control myth -- that the gun grabbers have saved us from the perils of "plastic guns," such as the Glock, that can escape detection by metal detectors, by imposing regulations that all guns must have at least 3.2 ounces of metal in them.
"The hysteria over "plastic guns" arose in the mid-1980s when the Austrian company Glock began exporting pistols to the United States," says Lott. "Labeled as 'terrorist specials' by the press, fear spread that their plastic frame and grip would make them invisible to metal detectors. Rarely mentioned was that Glocks still had over a pound of metal. Anyone who has ever been through a metal detector at an airport should understand how silly this fear was."
Despite all the horrible warnings about "plastic guns," Glocks are now common and there are good reasons why they are one of the favorite pistols of American police officers. They are reliable and lightweight.
No guns have ever been produced without metal in them, says Lott. Nor is there any evidence that such guns can be made. At the time of the vote in 1984 to require at least 3.2 ounces of metal be used in the manufacture of a gun to be considered legal, no gun made had less than 3.5 ounces of metal.
"The standard of 3.2 ounces was picked because it did not affect anything, not because evidence suggested that some threshold was necessary for public safety," said Lott. "Gun control groups got their hysteria, while politicians were able to posture that they were doing something. Politicians often believe that it is important to do something, even though that something often does nothing or makes things worse."
Another gun control failure, according to a story by Joyce Lee Malcolm in the London Telegraph, is the sweeping 1998 ban on private ownership of handguns in England. Five years later, handgun crime had doubled. A 2002 study by the United Nations of 18 developed countries placed England and Wales at the top of the Western world's crime league.
"As was forecast at the time," says Malcolm, "the effect of outlawing handguns has been that only outlaws have handguns."
In response to a series of brutal attacks on homeowners, especially the elderly, British authorities have advised people to retreat in case of a home invasion, and they are not to keep any object for protection. The British now live in fear of their lives because they no longer are able to possess handguns to protect themselves in or out of their homes.
Similarly, Australia is also experiencing the same skyrocketing crime rate since it outlawed guns several years ago.
In San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors also is proposing a foolhardy ban on handguns -- all handguns owned by residents, kept in businesses, or sold, manufactured, or distributed in the city. It would also prohibit the sale of ammunition in the city.
The reason for this latest proposal is an alleged increase in homicides. According to their statistics, 63 of last year's 88 homicides involved a firearm, but the city has averaged 71 homicides a year for the past decade. The low was 58 in 1998 with a high of 99 in 1995.
Attorneys for the NRA and the California Rifle and Pistol Association call the plan "ill-conceived and misplaced," and vow to challenge the measure. "It's turning firearms into a scapegoat for failed city policies," says attorney Chuck Michel. "Criminals are never going to have any problem getting the kind of guns they want." Michel promises challenges based on the Second Amendment and a questioning of the city's authority to regulate firearms.
The measure is expected to go before San Francisco voters in November. If passed, it would go into force in January 2006. Exceptions to the rule include police officers, security guards, military personnel and "others who require guns for their job."
There's no word on whether that category included armed bodyguards for the city fathers or for Hollywood's top anti-gun poster boy and girl, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnel. They both are rabid anti-gun activists, yet they snuggle under the blanket of protection provided by the Second Amendment by employing armed body guards.
Hollywood Hypocrites, I say.
Speaking of such, a Springfield, Missouri, woman who began lobbying against gun violence and became the Springfield Chapter President of the Million Mom March after her son was shot to death in 2002, was arrested earlier this month when police allegedly found an illegal gun (with scratched off serial numbers) and drugs in her home.
Annette "Flirty" Stevens, however, said she's innocent. Authorities said they obtained a search warrant for the residence as part of an ongoing investigation of a recent series of drive-by shootings. The gun and drugs were found during the search and Stevens was arrested at work.
Police declined to elaborate but say that Stevens has a close connection with one of two feuding groups involved in the shootings. Stevens, 47, who is free on bond, admitted she knows some of the people allegedly involved in the shootings.
She also admits to having the gun in the house but said it had belonged to her son. She didn't find it until six or seven months after he died. Not knowing what to do with it, she wrapped it up, put it in a drawer and forgot about it. She also said the police wrongly believe she is the ringleader of the shootings, and they think she has information to solve those cases because she socializes with some of the gang members.
Police began taking a closer look at Stevens after her name came up in interviews with witnesses and informants.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/03-05/03-20-05/e10sp964.htm.
