In response to the editorial, “Fewer guns, less violence” printed on Feb. 18, I must say I am getting tired of people proposing gun laws based on statements that the author hasn’t checked out.
First, the claim that the new law that California passed requiring all firearms manufactured after 2010 to imprint the firearm’s serial number onto the bullet was “smart gun legislation” and could hold gun owners and dealers accountable. This law actually entails the firearm imprinting the firearm’s serial number onto the cartridge casing which is then ejected from the weapon when the gun is fired. If a criminal picks up the casing after firing the gun, there is no “smart” evidence left behind. Another problem could occur when law-abiding citizens go to the range. After a day of shooting, our unsuspecting victim packs up and goes home. A criminal walks to the shooting bench and picks up an expended cartridge casing that the shooter had forgotten to pick up. That criminal can now toss this casing next to a scene of a crime and possibly implicate an innocent person. Finally, the technology itself can be easily defeated. The raised surfaces on the chamber of the gun and the firing pin can be removed with a metal file. Better yet, why not avoid the entire mess and just not use a gun with this technology (the thousands of firearms made before 2010 could be used)? This is a pointless law that has no ability to deter crime.
The claim that shootings take place in a “matter of seconds” and “it would be extremely unlikely that an ordinary citizen not sufficiently trained to handle these situations would be able to effectively take down an enraged attacker.” Remember the Colorado church shooting where an armed security guard stopped the attacker? Contrary to what the media have reported, this “security guard” was actually an ordinary citizen with a concealed weapon permit who volunteered to guard the church. Here’s an example where a woman with no special training other than the basic training she got while taking her concealed weapons course stopped an armed intruder before he could kill more people. That tragedy in Colorado could have been far worse if the church had been a “gun-free zone” where the attacker had no fear of recourse.
Finally, the author cites Washington, D.C., as a case where a city has recognized the correlation between the availability of firearms and gun violence. There is a huge difference between the availability of firearms to the law-abiding public and the availability of firearms to criminals through an illegal arms market. Washington D.C., currently forbids the ownership of handguns, and other firearms must be kept locked away and disassembled, rendering them useless for protection. Chicago also forbids possession of handguns by civilians. The rate of violence, including gun violence, has increased significantly as a result of these laws. It has been proven time and time again that restricting the rights of law-abiding civilians through gun control laws has no effect on crime, as criminals by definition do not obey these laws. That’s why all of these shootings have taken place on so-called “gun-free zones,” and the one time it did not the attacker was stopped.
I realize it is difficult to comprehend people carrying concealed firearms. You may even feel unsafe. Please realize that people who legally carry these weapons pose you no harm. They follow all the laws and have to go through a lot of background checks to obtain these permits. These people may even save your life someday, as evidenced by the Colorado church shooting.
Until the University allows students to carry firearms on campus, or at least dedicates a great number of armed police to patrol campus, our university could just as easily be yet another example where a “gun-free zone” became the scene of a horrific tragedy.
Christopher Singh is a University graduate student. Please send comments to [email protected].
