Second Amendment: Gun owner database necessary for safety

[diputs]

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive...ps-edit-01.asp


Second Amendment: Gun owner database necessary for safety

An ill-timed bill was introduced by a Pennsylvania state representative last week in support of Second Amendment rights.

The bill, if passed, would prohibit any government agency from keeping a database of privately owned firearms and would also permit domestic abuse victims to obtain 90-day gun licenses to protect themselves.

Although statements have been released saying the shootings at Virginia Tech did not prompt the bill, it is irresponsible and insensitive to introduce a bill that would allow easier access to guns and would limit police efforts in investigations two weeks after the event.

Police rely heavily on databases when looking into gun ownership. Under the new bill, police would be forced to directly contact gun manufacturers in order to obtain gun ownership information. Time is a critical component when investigating crimes, especially those involving guns.

It is a deterrence to police in their efforts to make cities safer.

According to philly.com, since the beginning of this year, Philadelphia has reported 136 homicides -- more than New York City, a much larger metropolis. It's more important than ever that police have an easily accessible record of gun owners.

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, who introduced the bill, said he believes such databases are unconstitutional and in violation of federal law. However, these databases do not violate any citizens' rights.

Most gun owners are responsible buyers, and any person who purchases any gun understands that records are kept of their purchase. It is an inherent risk when buying a firearm.

The second part of the bill allows domestic-abuse victims to obtain temporary licenses to protect themselves.

The concept of domestic violence became all too apparent in Centre County on April 8 when Benjamin Barone, 35, of Williamsport, lured his estranged wife to a Sheetz near Mill Hall and shot her, then killed himself. Jodi Barone, 36, of State College, had come to meet her husband where she expected to exchange custody of their three-year-old daughter.

It is a tragedy that Jodi Barone's life was cut short because of a poor decision by her husband.

However, more lenient gun laws would not have helped the situation and will not aid other cases of domestic dispute.

Permitting more people to obtain guns will only further the violence, not end it.

With the nation's focus on the issue of gun control, it is important to keep in mind that there can be tragic consequences to easing up on the law. Debate will continue about whether or not stricter gun laws could have prevented tragedies such as Virginia Tech, but it is clear that Metcalfe's bill does not aid anybody.

Responsible gun owners understand they have no reason to worry about the government knowning about their firearms.

This isn't a matter of privacy; it's a matter of common sense.


I see many holes in this argument...

First: as seen in this thread dont believe registration = confiscation Reasonable gun owners do need to worry about the government knowing about their firearms.

Second: most guns used in crimes are not legally purchased so how would the registation help police find the owners of these guns?

Third: My understanding of the second part of the bill would not make it easier for people to get guns but allow victims who already have them to get a LTCF quicker. There is nothing about skipping the PICS to purchase a gun.

[lexington86]

I am in the process of writing a lengthy response to this sad excuse for an Editorial. This latest trash from the collegian is just more emotional reactionary response to the latest tragedy.

I'll post my response when I'm finished.

[lexington86]

Here is my response:

Dear Board of Opinion,

I am deeply saddened and disappointed by today’s editorial, Second Amendment: Gun owner database necessary for safety. That said, I will add that it is the kind of writing I have come to expect from Collegian writers. While I’m sure you would claim to a creditable news publication, yet you allow the publication of such an unsubstantiated article. I do understand that the article was published as an “opinion” piece, the article quickly turned into one where the writer(s) assert their opinion as undisputable fact. This would have been well and good, except for the 100 percent lack of facts or evidence to back up said “opinion”. This, too, I expected upon seeing the heading of the editorial, as most people who take such a position on the issue of gun control rarely—if ever—have any evidence to back up their claims.

As a gun owner and gun rights advocate, I am constantly forced to engage in debate over the issue of gun control. I say ‘forced’ because as a staunch supporter of this country and the freedoms it gives me, I cannot stand idly by while people attack my rights through unsubstantiated claims based almost wholly on an emotional reactionary response. Today’s editorial is just another one of those responses. I sincerely hope that all those writers who contributed to today’s editorial will take a moment to read through this response just as I read through theirs.

Many people like to dispute the matter of ‘rights’ when it comes to gun control. Today’s editorial states, “[the] databases do not violate any citizens' rights. Most gun owners are responsible buyers, and any person who purchases any gun understands that records are kept of their purchase. It is an inherent risk when buying a firearm.” I wonder; did any of this editorial’s contributors take a moment to explore this claim? Not only does our Federal Constitution clearly state our “right” to keep and bear arms, but also the Pennsylvania State Constitution takes an even stronger position on our rights: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned” (PA Constitution, Section 21). The key words there are “shall not be questioned”. Don’t get me wrong here; I clearly see the need for the various background and character investigations that come with the legal purchase of a firearm, but that is where it should end. As my interpretation of our Constitutions—both Federal and State—goes, the databases in question are a clear violation of our right to keep and bear firearms without question. There should be no “inherent risk” when purchasing a firearm.

The theory behind the deployment of these firearm databases is, admittedly, pretty sound. If there is an easily-accessible list of all the firearms and their owners, every gun-related crime should be easily and quickly solved, right? Sadly, this theory seems to avoid one clear and blatant fact: criminals are criminals because they don’t obey the law. It has been shown over and over again that a large majority of criminals responsible for gun-related crimes acquired their weapons through illegal means. In a segment on ABC’s 20/20, John Stossel discusses the myth (and it is a myth) that strict gun control reduces violent crime. In the segment (video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg), John goes to a prison and interviews inmates about guns and gun laws. He asks them why the laws weren’t working. One inmate responds, “I'm not going in the store to buy no gun.” Another inmate adds, “There's guns everywhere, if you got money, you can get a gun.” John goes on to add, “A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily.” So how, then, would a firearms database do anything to help solve crime when a majority of the guns used in those crimes weren’t purchased legally in the first place? That’s right. The firearms database is completely useless in the majority of cases involving violent gun crime.

Today’s editorial takes the position (as most anti-gun people do) that more firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens (such as domestic abuse victims) would only lead to more violence. This is perhaps the most glaring unsubstantiated claim made in today’s editorial: “…more lenient gun laws would not have helped the [domestic abuse] situation and will not aid other cases of domestic dispute. Permitting more people to obtain guns will only further the violence, not end it.” This quotation is also perhaps the most glaring example of where an “opinion” is asserted as clear, undisputable fact. It seems that the writers of today’s editorial have the gift of foresight, as that quotation seems to try to tell the readers what will or will not occur in the future. I wonder if any of the contributors to today’s editorial thought to do a little research to try to back up their claims? It’s quite obvious to me that no research was done, because if anyone had done any, they would quickly find that nearly all of the research and studies done on effects of gun ownership come to the opposite conclusion. From the aforementioned John Stossel piece: “The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth.” Have you heard of the handgun ban in the U.K.? That must be the safest country in the world, right? Dead wrong. From another one of John Stossel’s articles, “But [the strict gun-control laws] didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.” (link: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1) So what about here in the states? Well, an academic study done in 1999 by John R. Lott Jr. and William M. Landes looked at public, multiple-victim shootings between 1977 and 1995. While I could summarize their finding for you, the following selection from their Abstract says it best: “Our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce normal murder rates, our results find that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws.” (link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=161637) You read it correctly. More guns (or even just the possibility of more guns) in the hands of law-abiding citizens is the most effective method of preventing shootings like VA-Tech or the editorial’s story of domestic abuse.

I hope at least on some level that I’ve succeeded in my goal of presenting a well-constructed and sufficiently substantiated argument against today’s purely emotional and reactionary response. I sincerely hope that the next time Collegian writers choose to take such a feeble position on a very controversial issue, they at least make an attempt to present some evidence to show why they have taken such a position. “…it’s a matter of common sense,” today’s editorial states. Perhaps it’s just me, but “common sense” tells me to do a little investigation before I go spewing controversial claims and asserting them as truth. Common sense also tells me that the only thing “irresponsible” here is the inevitable push to punish law-abiding citizens (people like myself) every time there is an incident like VA-Tech. I would like to expect better things from the news publication representing my University, but articles like today’s editorial makes it hard to take your publication seriously.

What do you think?

[Kenshin]

I know i cant write that good.

[Agent Ronin]

Damn lex, good stuff. That would have taken me atleast a day to write lol.

I can rebuild a engine but god help me if i have to write something

[lexington86]

Thanks guys!!!

I was able to pound that out in a couple of hours. I'm really hoping they decide to publish it as a "guest editorial" or something, but I'm not holding my breath.

[jsb889]

I think you're a damn good writer! Very nice piece of work

[dgg9]

Here is my response:


What do you think?

In these sort of articles, I would point out that there's nothing new under the sun. Every gun control policy someone dreams up has actually been tried somewhere. Of course politicians and the media would never bother with something so mundane as fact-checking and research. Every new gun control policy is touted without any admission it's been tried and failed elsewhere. No mention of past results is ever made. The policy is always praised in hopeful terms, as if the politician's good intentions will somehow magically produce results.

Off the top of my head: Canada and New Zealand enacted hugely expensive firearms registries, which have yet to solve a single crime. Indeed, NZ police lobbied to get rid of the registry, since it was diverting limited LEO manpower away from activities that actually lowered crime.

A good resource in this area is "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies" by David B. Kopel.

[dirksterg30]

Very well written, lexington. Aside from everything you've addressed, I disagree with the notion in the original article that makes no distinction between different types of violence:

The second part of the bill allows domestic-abuse victims to obtain temporary licenses to protect themselves.

The concept of domestic violence became all too apparent in Centre County on April 8 when Benjamin Barone, 35, of Williamsport, lured his estranged wife to a Sheetz near Mill Hall and shot her, then killed himself. Jodi Barone, 36, of State College, had come to meet her husband where she expected to exchange custody of their three-year-old daughter.

It is a tragedy that Jodi Barone's life was cut short because of a poor decision by her husband.

However, more lenient gun laws would not have helped the situation and will not aid other cases of domestic dispute.

Permitting more people to obtain guns will only further the violence, not end it.

While in this situation, I'm sure many of us would prefer to see the situation resolved without loss of life, I'd much prefer Jodi Barone to have used "violence" to defend herself than for her to just be killed. The author doesn't acknowledge that morally, and legally, violence is not all the same. Had Jodi killed her husband in self-defense, it would be justifiable homicide.

If more guns in the hands of domestic-abuse victims allows them to effectively defend themselves, I'm all for it. I wonder if the author is one of those ninnies who thinks it's noble to die at the hands of your attacker rather than defile yourself by using violence.

[Johannes_Paulsen]

I would be careful about citing John Lott, especially in a paper that will inevitably be read by academics -- that whole story involving him and the "Mary Roush" sock puppet online made him look a bit silly. (See here for details: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28771.html). There was also some questioning of his results involving, if memory serves, the survey data supporting his conclusion that most "defensive uses" of firearms on the street do not involving actually firing the weapon. (I think he recreated the survey in his book The Bias Against Guns, but just wanted to give you a heads-up on that, since someone will inevitably give you flack over that.)

Otherwise your letter looks fine. Hope they publish it.

Hope all is well up in Happy Valley! It's been years since I've been up there...

(Class of '96)

EDIT: Oh, capitalize the "it's" from that one quotation as such:

“[i]t’s a matter of common sense,”

Sorry...going back to my days as an English Comp TA....