It was inevitable that the advocates from both sides of the gun control issue would

creep from the woodwork, even before the full facts of the Virginia Tech are
available. Still, the act of a lone, mentally ill killer, provides nothing new to the
arguments heard over and over again from both sides. No one disputes the
extensive use of firearms in criminal activities ranging from Armed Robbery to
Homicide.
With all the state and federal statues passed to restrict or prevent the illegal use of
firearms, their usage rates have not changed appreciably – certainly not enough to
say, “This legislation has fixed the problem.” Given this reality, an objective
assessment of why all our efforts to use the law have failed to prevent criminal
weapons usage, would seem to be far more useful than emotional, reactive efforts
to pass (or prevent) new laws.
The root cause of the VT tragedy rested with only one fact. Existing statutes,
designed to prevent such horrific killings, were not enforced. In the State of Virginia,
a person who has been adjudicated as being a threat to himself or others cannot
legally obtain a firearm. Cho Seung-Hui, indeed, fit this criterion. A Virginia Court
had found that he fit this criterion, and had ordered him committed. Yet, he was
able to legally obtain the weapons used. Somewhere, in the complex information
chain, the weapons dealer was not informed that his sale of a handgun was
prohibited.
This single instance suggests an answer to the more general problem. For every
firearm used in a premeditated criminal act, one or many statutes designed to
prevent such acts were not enforced. This same generalization applies to more than
the criminal use of firearms. How about the twelve million, or more, illegal
immigrants residing in the United States? What could be more apparent than the
deliberat e failure to enforce deportation and employment laws than actions taken
by all levels of law enforcement, from local to Federal? What about the millions of
identity thefts occurring each year? The proximate cause for such theft is err or … a
failure to protect the sensitive personal information leading to these thefts.
In the supply chain, from manufacturer to end-user, two problems occur. With all
transactions occurring in the private sector, both error and deliberate action make
possible the violations that occur. So the question becomes one of developing
policies and procedures which can increase the effective enforcement of existing
firearms law. It certainly is not one of passing new or repealing existing legislation.
It is one of making the existing legislation work, as intended.
To achieve their intended purpose, a symbiotic relationship exists between the
weapon and its ammunition. Neither can operate without the functionality of the
other. The gun owner will typically go to the same source for ammunition as he did
for the gun. Although each is equally necessary, authorization to purchase a
complete weapon system (the gun and the ammunition) is, for all practical
purposes, directed at the hardware, with little attention being paid to those
purchasing ammunition. Yet, the diversity of available ammunition available for use
with a given handgun can raise immediate questions about its intended use.
Handgun ammunition best suited for target shooting is quite different from that
designed to inflict maximum damage and lethality on human beings.
The requirements for licensing of firearms dealers, set forth in USC Title 18923,
make no mention of any knowledge qualifications related to either the weapons or
the ammunition intended to be sold, let alone any forensic knowledge which might
be helpful in spotting those with criminal purposes. If the sellers of the weapons
and ammunition Cho used had such knowledge, the purchase of Hollow Point
ammunition in large quantities might very well have raised questions regarding his
intent.
While the illegal purchase of a handgun requires some cleverness and knowledge
about sources, no such difficulty exists when it comes to the purchase of
ammunition. It can be purchased anywhere, including the Internet. Given all of the
above, would it not make preventative sense to make the requirements for the
purchase of ammunition as rigorous, or even greater than that for purchasing the
gun? What about separating those who sell the hardware from those who sell the
ammunition, as being completely separate suppliers?
Clearly, those in the community having the most knowledge about ammunition, its
performance, and its potential damage to victims are the local/state police and
sheriffs. If law enforcement has control of all ammunition, it is in the best position
to insure that it does not fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill. If all
ammunition is sold on the premises, of a law enforcement agency, the chances of
theft are far reduced than when fund in a commercial facility.
Once implemented, anyone seeking ammunition would purchase it at police
stations, Sherriff’s offices, or State Police facilities. Permits might include a
maximum number of rounds, limits on types of ammunition purchased, etc. All of
these procedures would be under state control, as are controls on concealed
weapons licenses, purchase of destructive or hazardous materials, etc.
All revenue derived from the sales of ammunition would go to state or local law
enforcement agencies, as determined by each state legislature. This would be
consistent with other state revenue raising activities such as issuance of hunting
licenses, drivers licenses, license plate fees, or admission to state operated
recreational facilities.
But what of the case of Cho? While if the plan described above were implemented,
the amount of ammunition he purchased and the type of rounds purchased might
well have raised the suspicions of police selling ammunition, he might well have
been able to maintain an appearance, and construct a credible reason for
purchasing the ammunition. Maintaining a state-wide database of all ammunition
purchased by an individual by date, number of rounds, and type, as well as
maximum limits on aggregate purchases could certainly have raised warning flags,
and could well have limited the deaths he caused.
All of which brings us back to the basic question of personal privacy versus the
public interest. We have the technology to insure the identity and relevant
information about every citizen can be carried on a credit card sized piece of plastic.
We could certainly code such a card with information regarding that person’s
permission to drive a motor vehicle, purchase a handgun, purchase alcoholic
beverages, as well as access permission host of other services that are regulated by
the State. We could severely limit identity theft, while at the same time make a
medical history available in the event the holder of the card is unable to provide
information to those treating him.
Beyond insuring the individual access to services to which he is qualified to receive ,
and preventing him from engaging in illegal activity, or which accessing services to
which he has no permission to receive, there are broader national implications for
such an ID card. It would end, once and forever after any question of who among us
is a citizen of this country, who a legal guest, and who is illegally present. Ultimately,
as each person is furnished a personal ID card, it would sharply reduce the cost and
error rate of conducting the decennial census, more accurately specifying the
number of members of the House of Representatives, and potentially providing a
more frequent census.
Once fully in place, the cost of government would be sharply decreased, violent
criminal behavior could be expected to decline, and we could severely limit the
potential for terrorist attacks.
Those in opposition cite the erosion of what is interpreted as a Constitutional
guarantee of a right to privacy. Ten years ago, in May, 1997, Steven Moore, an
economist with the Cato Institute provided congressional testimony which well
articulates the principle objections to this perceived invasion of privacy. While the
technology has made quantum leaps in capabilities, the issues he raised remain at
the core of why we have yet to implement such a plan.
Before the tragedy of Virginia Tech fades from your attention, consider the solutions
offered above and take the appropriate action with your lawmakers.